So do I get you right, once a country has some person or company on the sanctions list, companies should better cease operating in that country to not get fined for violating sanctions?

No, that's a facile assertion. It's not even about "sanctions". Companies should cease operating in a country where the legal and practical risks of doing business in the country outweigh any potential profit. Russia isn't exactly rolling in the dough right now, and most goods sold in Russia now require a license to transfer[1]. Add to that the risk of the Russian government simply stealing your business away from you, and you have quite the effective deterrent.

American companies unloading their Russian assets like offices are advised by the American Bar Association to destroy everything that's not nailed down so that they do not have licensing concerns. [2]

[1] https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/country-gu... [2] https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...

Edit: I can't reply to you, but [3] here's an example of how Russia legalized the theft of intellectual property.

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/09/russia-al...

Hmm. So, how can Russia steal the business of Grammarly or Figma?

A company does not need a reason to stop servicing a country. They just can.

And users can stop trusting such company and using its products.

(It is notable, how quickly you abandoned your arguments about the risk of sanctions and moralily)

>(It is notable, how quickly you abandoned your arguments about the risk of sanctions and moralily)

Huh? I never made a statement about sanctions and morality. In fact I explicitly said it is not a moral question and questioned your statement that it is a moral question versus a standard business decision.

>And users can stop trusting such company and using its products.

Of course. Freedom of association is great.