Tooze never made they claim that all of the consequences didn't exist at all before the crisis. For instance, one of the consequences was the rehabilitation of Yanukovych in Ukraine. Obviously he existed, with quite a lot of power, before. But the crisis destroyed the credibility of his rivals leaving him as "last man standing". And that -- along with the clear abandonment of Ukraine by the EU (or at least the ECB) during the crisis -- led almost directly to the current invasion of Crimea.

> I just think it's much more nuanced and complicated than the article outlines.

Maybe this is where the article is giving you a skewed perception because Tooze's whole point in his book is that things are super nuanced and complicated! I mean, part of his thesis is that the invasion of Iraq played an (eventual, partial) role in Putin humbling the oligarchs in 2009 and further cementing his power. The whole vibe I got from reading Crashed was that nothing was simple. It wasn't "subprime mortgages", it wasn't "bad bankers", for instance. Because those are simple answers, simple explanations.

Tooze's main thesis is that the traditional, simple view is that the 2008 subprime crash was an American thing, the 2010 European crisis was a European thing, both of them are basically wrapped up by now, and that's that. And that traditional, simple view is wrong because the real world (unsurprisingly) is nuanced and complicated.