The United States and Russia impose sanctions on each other. Whose losses are greater?

The United States and Russia are mutually sanctions, and Russia’s losses are even greater. First, the sanctions were first initiated by the United States. Russia is a passive response and is essentially retaliatory sanctions. Equivalent to attacking me, I counterattack you, is forced to do so. The US-Russian mutual sanctions are mainly economic sanctions. In fact, economic sanctions are always a double-edged sword. There is no absolute winner, only relative victory. However, economic sanctions essentially achieve economic goals by economic means. If economics is about pursuing "absolute gains," then politics is about "relative returns." In economic terms, you earn a thousand, I earn eight hundred, and both make money. However, in politics, even if the power of the trick increases, if you increase more, your advantage over me increases. Therefore, when economic sanctions are used, there must be only economic losses, no benefits, and the benefits are only political.
The US economic sanctions against Russia are to stop the financial and energy cooperation between the two countries, causing Russia's economic recession, which in turn leads to public dissatisfaction and pressure on the Putin government to force it to make concessions on diplomatic issues, mainly on the Ukrainian issue. Russia’s economy is only a dozen percent of the United States, and US-Russian trade accounts for less than one-tenth of US foreign trade. Russia is not important to the United States. However, the United States is the global financial hegemon, and New York is the financial center of the world. The US's European allies are the largest financing location.
In the long run, sanctions will also put Russia in a long-term recession and backwardness. Russia's economy relies mainly on energy exports, and its own financial system and manufacturing system are relatively fragile. The sanctions against Russia will greatly enhance the "closedness" of the Russian economy. And we know that one of Putin’s means of dealing with sanctions is “import substitution.” However, import substitution has long been proven to be a failure development strategy, and export-oriented development is the optimal path for late-stage countries to catch up with advanced countries. Therefore, Putin’s “import substitution” may make Russia “self-sufficient”, but it must also be “closed”. We know that in the era of globalization, closure actually means backwardness.