The point is that no two situations are exactly the same. And whataboutism dodges the details.
Maybe the CEO’s stance is: I won’t do business with a country that annexes another non-aggressive country through violence.
Maybe the CEO’s stance is: I won’t do business with a country that annexes another non-aggressive country through violence.
Otherwise the Kingdom of Hawaii might have something to say.
That’s why it’s possible to play “what about” all day long and not get very far. It’s almost always apples and oranges.
Ukraine isn’t Iraq or any other US military action. It doesn’t mean the US actions were good. It’s just too dissimilar to be an apples to apples comparison.
The closest apple I can think of is another European authoritarian leader, with bold threatening rhetoric and a strong nationalist identity who felt humiliated and threatened and decided to purge his opposition while promising other leaders he wouldn’t invade his neighbors before quickly annexing much weaker, non-aggressive neighboring countries that he thought lacked sufficient cultural and geographical distinction or were part of his country’s historical borders.
And a lot of people had regrets about not pushing back sooner on that guy and incorrectly trusting that he would stop after the first country or two.
FTFY, but what's your point? Just about every state on planet earth came about through violence.