I mean, if, by "fighting back", you mean destroying its own economy, then yes, The West is "fighting back". But not the world, as the vast majority of nations - 7 Billion people -- are not imposing any sanctions because they have more rational leadership than in the 1 Billion people that are destroying their own economy in the name of "fighting back".

The main reason why the West is in rapid decline at the moment is because it is adopting policies based on their therapeutic value to the administrative class, rather than their effectiveness. That's a recipe for failure, and if you want to succeed rather than fail, then you need to choose your actions carefully and strategically rather than slamming your head against a granite wall because you think this means you are "fighting back".

The vast majority of the world has no economic power to impose meaningful sanctions. They are suffering already.

The Ukraine situation is also a message to China, which makes it more worthwhile.

The sanctions have driven Russia and China together to being strong allies, which is a strategic defeat for the U.S.

But you are right, they do send a "message", which is that the West is an irrational actor that undermines its own interests, and is thus an untrustworthy ally. This is why Saudi Arabia and Turkey are moving away from the U.S. towards the emerging Axis of Sanity

Russia will be a satellite state of China, but one could argue that was going to happen anyway.

What would you do instead?

I would not apply sanctions, and not do anything until the opportunity arose to do something that is effective.

The idea that we must perform an ineffective and self-destructive measure just because it's the only one we can think of doing is not good statecraft.