not sure if you read the article but they (allegedly) hacked into pentagon and released information to wikileaks that painted the democratic nominee in a bad light which was then cycled over and over in the news. don't think this can be corrected

For international law, we have had in the last year quite many hacking scandals involving the NSA and a common comment here on HN is that such activity is legal. If the country from where the hack originate has laws that permits it, then many view that as making every computer a fair target.

That leaves the interference aspect, and we saw quite a few examples during the election. There were a 7 years old non-published camera recordings which was used, without the consent of the recorded person. Is that form of interference permissible during an election?

Then we had news articles about allegations of crimes for which no court or judge have seen. Is publishing anonymous statement of such allegations a form of interference, and if so should it be legal?

Or should it only be legal if the entity that do the interference is located in the nation that holds an election? If so, what about international news agencies, many which originated in the US but is now, often for tax reason, located elsewhere. Should a news agency located in Ireland be permitted to interfere with the US election?

Sanctions achieve nothing except making the US hated around the world.

It sounds like your main complaint is that "punish" has... an ownership or parental connotation?

Doesn't make me feel better.