Maybe it's just 6 am brain and enshittified search tools, but I couldn't find the study at all.

First of all, "causing excess death" is not "murder", no matter how much you want to equate them.

But merely lamenting the consequences of sanctions is like lamenting how lives are ruined by imprisoning criminals with no attention given to what would likely happen if crime just went unpunished.

Sanctions are applied in response to something and have to be viewed through that lens. How many more deaths would result if repressive governments felt they had free rein to commit crimes against their own populations and those of their neighbours if they faced no repercussions for doing so?

This is why the article is written irresponsibly, and probably is a propaganda piece: it does not make any attempt to relate the outcome of sanctions to likely alternative situations in which sanctions were not applied. This way of examining sanctions (or anything) can perfectly well be used to criticise sanctions as causing suffering in excess of what they are supposed to be combating.

No, mate, the parent commenter asserts that the tankies only claim it murders 500,000 people a year because it also economically hurts Russia.

Man what did I write?

I doubt anyone will argue we've, historically, treated Iran or Venezuela well, but to not even touch on why the sanctions are in place is awful journalism.

Maduro is an authoritarian who's starving his population and ask the women of Iran how they feel about their government. Why they're in the situation they are is clearly with the influence of the us and large parts of the western world. If you do have an alternative to financial blockades please, I am actually all ears.

As someone who tries to avoid American and Chinese made products I really dislike the idea of us indulging even more terrible regimes

Ok. How?