At any rate, if we want to engage in a productive discussion, let us enumerate alternatives and rank them. I'll start
* Sanctions * Military Engagement * Assassination * Covert policy, government, elections influence
What other means does the world have to say "please don't do that"? Which are preferred over / should come before sanctions, and why?
I don't mean this to sound antagonistic. I'm tremendously frustrated because I agree sanctions are weak, mis-targeted and won't drive sufficient change fast enough. But while I can rail against them, I don't genuinely know what else is left on the plate. One participant is acting like a violent bully. At that point, once discussion/education/negotiation has failed, there's really no good options for anybody left.
The only effective counter to Russia right now is direct military aid to Ukraine. But the rest of the world has chosen to re-enact 1938 all over again.
The US aid package just announced includes security aid that is a sizable fraction of Ukraine's annual defense spending, on top of preexisting direct security aid. And the US isn't alone. Sanctions aren't the only response.
If however by direct military aid you mean soldiers on the ground fighting Russians, then a) I agree that would be more effective and b) I think it's unlikely to happen because c) if we engage in second order thinking, I don't see how it ends well for anyone in the short term. That's the problem with a Bully, they don't care about their own pain as much as other guys care about theirs. Once they start hitting, there are no great options. All options from here on suck.
Because you'll end up fighting the bully anyway sooner or later. But if it's later, there will be fewer left standing by your side.
The problem is
1. This Bully has nuclear weapons
2. This Bully has historically shown they are willing and able to take more pain for their cause.
As for being willing to take more pain - you're right, that's a big part of the problem for the West. But it needs to understand that, just like in 1938, avoiding the bully only delays the inevitable, and the pain will still come eventually.
Somebody decides that using tactical kiloton Nukes is the way to go and other side would not dare escalate further.
A lot of people think if they do the big fearsome escalation, then the other side will back off. Everything up to this point indicates this is Putin's logic. He may be over committed now - what option other than finishing invasion does he realistically have that preserves any goals or prerogatives? In some ways the rational thing, from his perspective, is to keep escalating until other side acts "rationally" and backs off.
It's all a giant game of chicken, and I am not convinced that all state leaders anywhere let alone everywhere are rational and fearful enough.
I know some went to Kurdistan on their own expense to help hunt down Daesh war criminals and further back I think some well known resistance fighters from second world war had experience from defending Finland before going back to Norway to fight the Nazis.