Let me give you an example: I can't open dell.com, at all. What I want to believe is that they blocked all access because it was easy, just a geo thingy flipped on. It is their decision though, but it is supported on existing sanctions. So... yes, the law compels them to do it, indirectly or not. And there are hundreds, thousands of other examples that I can provide, if you're interested.
This confirms my secondhand knowledge of financial sanctions. It seems to universally be this way and makes me wonder why we still tout them as if they were effective. They sure don’t seem to be.
False. There's a lot (the majority) of people from my close circle who were and are "upset", if I can put it this way. I don't have the statistics, but let's say that's 80/20 ratio (supporters/non-supporters), even though I personally believe it's closer to 50/50.
> fast-food, clothes
So you really think that limited access to the Internet and the fact that McDonalds is gone would force these 20% to get on the streets and fight against the heavily armed government forces AND the rest 80% of the country population? I mean, among the other reasons that come to mind, sanctions (movies, cars, clothes - what??) are somewhere at the very bottom of my list, if matter at all.
The thing is, I somewhat understand why the sanctions were placed decades ago, but... is that rationale still valid? Anyway, and sadly, the sanctions affect "regular" people like me the most. The ruling elite? Not at all.
Thank you for your position, BTW!