"Donating his stash" means "printing more BTC" to you?
Absolutely not, which is the point I am making.When you said "unless you're Satoshi..." I took that in reference to it being impossible to print any more bitcoin. Reading the line that I quoted from you again, perhaps your intended meaning was that bitcoin could not be used to fund wars, unless Satoshi donated their stash? I don't strictly agree with that either, though. Bitcoin can be used to fund anything, if it is owned in sufficient quantities by the "right" people. I think it is fairly likely that a number of governments around the world are holding not insignificant amounts of bitcoin.
That way they could capture a huge share of the BTC hashrate (and maybe even perform a 51% attack if they're malicious enough).
Will they do it? Most likely not. They would have to abandon their other customers (Apple, nVidia, AMD etc.) and the global economy (totally dependent on microchips) would collapse. That will happen when China invades Taiwan either way, but that's another discussion.
So yeah, there are potential ways to fund wars with BTC, but it would be extremely difficult and counterproductive. Just like it was possible to fund wars with gold, but it's very hard to extract huge amounts of gold.
With fiat USD it's easy-peasy. And yet, you see Americans on this board being "OK" with the fact US taxpayers paid 2 trillion over 20 years to fund a failed war in Afghanistan.
Let's not just blame the FED/US government. Most citizens are pretty dumb too. An enlightened minority cannot go against the majority. At least not in democracy.