None of that nuance is necessary in this case. To be clear, kids: helping a despotic regime with ICBM ambitions evade currency controls so its ruling class can enjoy luxury and fund WMD weapons programs while its citizens literally starve is A Bad Thing.

If your sanctions cause people to die, of hunger, sickness or anything else, it's violence.

I'm not against sanctions depending on the circumstances, but you're just wrong

2. Sanctions are not the same as a blockade. What you're describing is a blockade. To be more specific, suspending trade is not the same an active blockade. I haven't seen any indication to see the current sanctions could even function as a blockade.

Which would imply famine, poverty, the flu are forms of violence.

This distortion of the English language is so tortured it's just nonsensical at this point.

Is it violence if you walk past a homeless guy who is hungry and you don’t give him food?

EDIT: Putin puts people in jail for not following marching orders. The U.S. puts people in jail for not following sanctions. It doesn't seem logical to draw a distinction on what is or is not warlike (bullets vs sanctions) based on who jails people, since they both jail people who disobey orders. I assume other factors would be more relevant?