They aren't holding Russia accountable, they holding Russians accountable and that seems like a terrible thing.
Americans can't be this shallow. This is ridiculous. THINK about what you are suggesting with these sanctions regimes. Sanctions are a crime against humanity, too.
>They should share some of the pain.
Such utter totalitarian-authoritarian nonsense. Did 9/11 stop the US from bombing innocent people in the Middle East?
Your experience is valid and interesting. Still, unless you’ve got a better alternative, and until sanctions do actually cause those potential harms, I think they are the best weapons we have.
No, bad actors/dictators produce extreme poverty and hyperinflation.
> Guys who are in power can even more easily hold to the power and use force against the populous.
Too bad for the populace. Maybe they should have got off their arses and got rid of the bad guys a little earlier, eh?
> Destroying free media and maxing propaganda and sadly average person falls for propaganda if it is fed to him daily.
Do you really think it's sanctions from the West that have turned Russian media into propaganda mouthpieces?
So .. Why are we supporting the KSA by shipping it weapons and refuelling their planes, then?
Because we learned that genocide by sanctions is an effective weapon, as per Iraq, Libya, etc. Alongside the children of Yemen, we are directing this same policy at the children of Russia.
It's not the rest of the world that keeps putting dictators in power in Russia, is it? It's the Russians.
Yes of course there is: That's the only way to do it. What else do you think economies and states are, if not people?
NATO, EU, Switzerland and a few others are not trying to hold Russians accountable. They are trying to hit the Russian economy strong and hard to demonstrate that Putin's Russia cannot afford a war against the West. That's after Putin and his representatives articulated several times and in no uncertain terms the threat of a nuclear attack against the West.
Are people going to suffer for it? Absolutely. That's the definition of a war, even if it the West has chosen to use money to wage it, rather than deploying soldiers.
Is it worth it? Time will tell, I suppose.
All I can tell you is that in the past week, I have spent time role-playing/strategizing the entire situation with friends (that's how I evacuate stress, YMMV) and, based on the information I have at hand, I would have done the same if I was playing the West.
edit Clarified.
I would need to double-check, but I'd be surprised if it didn't hurt Napoleon's army, as well as Hitler's and Mussolini's, for instance. I remember that one of the reasons for which the Allies won WWII is that towards the end of the war, the Wehrmacht had considerable difficulties finding fuel for their panzers and logistics and had insufficient ammo for extended fights.
Hurts bystanders, too, of course.