A few thoughts from the author of the question:

The state’s primary source of income is taxes, and it is likely that to pay interest on bonds, the state will resort to increasing its debt burden. Unsuccessful bond placements from the state’s perspective are a signal that it is not trusted enough to attract funds as cheaply as it wants, and this could lead to a reduction in government spending.

At the same time, the inability to borrow may lead to reaching into pockets through taxes.
I am inclined to believe that it is better not to lend to states, but from a selfish position, such a decision does not always seem optimal—rates can be attractive, and risks low compared to other offers on the market.

But if one does not want to deal with the state for ethical reasons, then things are somehow more complicated with state corporations.

Private Banker™

I hesitated for a long time to answer this question because I am not very well-versed in finance. Similarly, for example, in his recent interview with Alexey Markov, Grigory Bazhenov says that this is not his field, so he is not accountable to anyone here, but is asking questions himself. Of course, it is easier for me, because the question concerns not the profitability and reliability of certain investments, but the ethical side of the matter, and anyone is capable of formulating an ethical judgment.

But even to answer from an ethical standpoint, I want to be sure I’m not just talking nonsense. Essentially, what are my doubts? Suppose I say that lending to the state is bad, and one should put money in a bank. And this turns out to be stupid amateur advice, because banks not only pay lower interest but also use the money received from citizens to buy those very same state company bonds. Or I name some private company whose bonds are not shameful to buy, and it turns out that its controlling stake belongs to some ghoul who actively cooperates with the state, including to squeeze out their competitors.

But if one stubbornly tries to keep their hands clean, where should one invest? In Bitcoin? If the goal is to save for old age, then—definitely in Bitcoin. But if one wants to live even partially on passive income, then one wants to choose from instruments that provide cash flow. In real estate, as Kiyosaki preached? One might think that developers in Russia are less of a ghoul than the top management of state corporations. Yes, actually, it’s not always clear where the coins come from with Bitcoin either. Maybe you are helping an official wash a bribe? Of course, the most ethically flawless investments are agorist businesses. But what reliability can we talk about here?

Therefore, let me answer this way. The very desire to reflect on which investments are more ethical and which are less is wonderful. The desire to punish companies or governments for unethical actions by dumping their papers is a powerful reputational tool; it should be used. But in conditions where it is difficult to find completely clean assets, one can, at least, practice smart voting: buy those who are relatively decent, at the expense of those who are complete psychos. All other things being equal—prefer private entities over state corporations. If there is access to global stock markets, then look at the papers of governments and companies from countries that behave more decently. But, of course, without forgetting about risks and profits.

And still, buy some Bitcoin for old age.