I wonder what percentage of the Russian GNP comes from ammunition export sales to the United States?? What portion of that revenue goes to the Russian Federal govt?
Somehow, I'm thinking that it can't be a very large percentage.
I gotta wonder, if the REAL reason is to punish the Russian govt why bullets? Why not caviar or oil, or some other product that actually produces enough income that removing some or all of it would matter???
I understand the idea behind import bans, and "economic sanctions", but is there anywhere in the world in the past century where, by themselves, they have actually worked and delivered the desired result???
I can't think of any.
Hasn't seemed to change Iran's policies. Didn't seem to get Saddam out of power in Iraq....how long did we have sanctions in place against South Africa? Was it sanctions alone that created changes there? I don't think so.
Fidel Castro kept control of Cuba until old age finally took him out of power, despite a nearly complete prohibition of the US buying anything from Cuba for what...40+ years???
Economic sanctions against Imperial Japan didn't work out the way we figured, either. Rather something quite different, as we learned on Dec 7 1941.
Banning US import of Russian guns and ammunition is a symbolic gesture with most likely about zero impact on world politics, and probably very low impact on the Russian economy.
What it is, is an easy (executive order) way to prohibit SOME of the guns and ammo imported into the US, without "threatening" our Second Amendment rights and igniting again the domestic gun control fight.
The people being affected and the amount of money "lost" are insignificant to world leaders, both ours and theirs. They claim this is a "foreign policy" matter, but I think we all know what it really is, behind the smoke and mirrors...