I suspect you might have stopped reading the article at the first paragraph - which presents a thesis that the rest of the article then proceeds to analyze and disprove.
If I'd linked you an article that said the Russian people wouldn't be hurt but that the sanctions were likely to change Putin's policies, then would you feel the opposite? It seems like you're trying to play both sides of the coin here.
We can only control the financial damage of the Russian people with our sanctions in the hopes that their public opinion will sway the opinion of Putin's cabinet and we've accomplished that here. There is no intervention on Earth that would guarantee the changing of Putin's mind short of a gun to his head. I'd go so far as to say you've erected a straw man.
Of course.
> It seems like you're trying to play both sides of the coin here.
It seems like your telepathy machine is broken.
> There is no intervention on Earth that would guarantee the changing of Putin's mind short of a gun to his head.
That might be the case. But if you think that is the case, why are you suggesting a different, ineffective but cruel intervention? An uncharitable interpretation of your proposal is that you want to hurt ordinary Russian people because you want to see someone suffer for Putin's actions.
What's important here is to maintain the moral upper ground. China won't be able to withstand public opinion swaying to the side of the Ukrainians as more and more video evidence surfaces of massacres. If we offer real military support to the Ukrainians, China would use any video of our success as justification to begin helping the Russian side.
Protip: If you want to research the effects of sanctions, go to Google News search and set the time period to exclude articles from after 2020ish. You'll get higher-quality articles.
[0]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-sanctions-stop-putin/