No, they shouldn't do this, nor should any corner of the market be pressured into suddenly cutting off transactions with Russia, kicking out all Russians and their products, etc.
I'm sorry, but everyone who makes this sound like a simplistic ethical decision just seem too young to remember what our own interventions looked like, or perhaps too young emotionally to process the events they've lived through.
The Russian takeover of that territory is not a good thing, okay. Now flash back a few years, and the US was invading multiple nations in the Middle East to topple them, all on the basis of very clearly lying to the rest of the world about "weapons of mass destruction," a fictional tool of propoganda that the US knowingly deployed in order to tell the world it had the right to create regime change across the globe on its own terms. The UN didn't even approve of the invasion, and the United States with a couple of smaller bullied allies did it anyway. According to the rules, the US acted in defiance of international peace processes. And we do it all the time. Just as we try to topple regimes we don't like through various covert ops and disinformation campaigns, or we quietly refuse to even speak of other illegal occupations by nations like China if we feel the economic price of retalliation is too high.
The precedent you're setting is that anyone breaking away from international rules will be hit with economic isolation, using the full powers of a digital economy to possible even stop all banking systems and transfers, stop all access to shared international cloud systems and other things run by our tech, which is a level of sanction previously not possible on this scale because we didn't have such centralized international digital landscapes that could be switched off. But if you want to deploy all of that power now, just realize it could easily be used to cut off nations that do other things the new international consensus doesn't like. Remember California forbidding all official travel to states that don't follow its own abortion or gender laws, citing it as a human rights problem? It is absolutely within both the power and intent of entities like the EU and the US to one day decide to cut off nations that don't follow our social policies.
In any case, we're hyprocrites to act as managers of what is acceptable on the world stage with zero moral credibility, and the US and other wealthy Western nations do not need to continue down the path of trying to use their economic power to control the world according to its own designs. All this is can do is give new, somewhat legitimate grievances to the people of these nations who already feel we've always used our economy to corner and dominate them.
It is unfair to people of Russia as well that everyone are against them
