Part of the weakness is that 'warfare' is probably not the best way to conceptualize it.
In actual warfare I end someone's life and they do not wake up the next day to fight me, or I wound them to a similar outcome. In 'economic' warfare I still wake up the next day when you freeze all my assets, or stop sending me my goods, or stop servicing my departments.
It's just a fundamentally different dynamic. And I agree, it's not clear.
That said, I do think these actions were necessary, geopolitically. My tangential opinion is that there have been two implementations of Capitalism in conflict the past decades, Western and Chinese. It's what I think has spurned the capital booms in each and acted as the foundational fabric for lots of cultural and political skirmishes.
But in this environment China could not necessarily be seen in direct competition and vice versa. Here, Russia acted as a sort of European conduit for China's geopolitical aims and cultural propaganda.
These western economic actions now help to more clearly split the two implementations in order to, I speculate, give the Western system time to breathe and consolidate. Lick its wounds. Whether it meets its goals, i'm skeptical, but I do believe it's rational even if it causes Russia to re-orient rather than collapse.
It may also be beneficial as a warning to smaller nations looking to try and keep a foot in both, if Russia can't do it...