By implication, you are saying that the 9/11 attacks were morally justified, right? In fact, there is a case that they were strictly more so: as everyone asserts, American elections are more fair and free than Russian ones, so American citizens would have a better chance to elect someone who did not brutalise the Islamic world, and American citizens have more money and stronger passports, so they would have a much easier time leaving.

(Arguably, 9/11 indeed backfired badly for the perpetrators.)

There are levels to this. The term used by diplomats and leaders is Proportionality.

Its already accepted that non violent means that nevertheless still negatively impact civilians are appropriate measures to apply political pressure. That's what economic sanctions are. I don't see how that can be considered acceptable yet cutting off digital communications is a bridge too far. I consider economic sanctions more severe than blocking the Russians from the global internet. One means you lose access to information. The other means your economy may collapse and you might not be able to afford food.

As for the 9/11 attacks, they were deliberate attacks on civilian targets which are traditionally considered war crimes when carried out by state actors and terrorist attacks when not. They are definitely far worse than softer measures like sanctions and not directly comparable.

And there is nothing arguable about it. They definitely backfired. Bin Laden did not hide his intentions or feelings. In fact he wrote extensively and publicly on it. He expected that the American public, who were broadly ignorant to US foreign policy at the time would empathize with him and blame their government. The opposite happened.

If 911 was an event where a bunch of Saudis got together and said they wouldn't sell us more oil or trade with us further because Americans did bad things you might have a point.

Since it wasn't I see your response as pretty irrelevant.

What if it was an event where they rallied nearly the entirety of the world apart from the US to cease trading with the US, confiscated or froze US assets abroad, and made threats that their media generally described as "cratering the US economy"? If this resulted in a Great Depression level of death and suffering in the US (which seems to be what our leadership is hoping for in Russia), would you still be inclined to see it as more akin to a minnow like Saudi Arabia unilaterally refusing trade than to killing random US citizens?

(On that matter, the last major instance of another country confiscating Western assets I'm aware of was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company, which was answered with a CIA-instigated coup.)

In this hypothetical do the Saudis promise to do this for all eternity or until the U.S. stops killing people with tanks and guns and withdraws from occupied territory?

Another completely irrelevant non sequetor.

It's not the whole society that is murdering their neighboors. If that were true, all americans should be considered criminals.

The Russians are all complicit since they are all paying taxes to fund the war and obeying the dictator's edicts (unless they are in prison.)

Maybe it's true of Americans for the war in Iraq or whatever but my objection is specifically to the weird (to me) use of the word "punishment" in the post I replied to.

I'd say don't talk about "punishment" as if your position has a moral high ground. Let's talk about being complicit.

The post above argues we should help fund the war efforts to kill Ukrainians through profitable business relations with the Russians, and the poster apparently thinks they have the moral high ground given the use of the word "punishment" to describe the the idea we shouldn't help the Russians continue to fund their efforts to kill people.

I think a better question to ask would be `Cui bono`, from an individual, group, and macro perspective.