[ta_donk_gt]

Call it whatever you want, but you know you are only distracting from the point of comments like these. That point is that you need to be consistent. If you have a problem with some behavior on the other side, then you also need to have a problem when the same behavior happens on your side. If you are ok with one, you must be ok with the other. If you have a problem with one, then you must have a problem with the other. If you want to crucify people on the other side for some behavior, then you must also be okay when that same crucification happens to members of your side. If you write off some behavior when it happens on your side, you must also be willing to write it off when it occurs on the other side.

(Sorry to essentially say the same thing multiple times over, but hypocrisy is so engrained in our dna you need to forcefully call attention to it sometimes.)

[Naritai]

It's entirely possible to be in favor of open democracies supporting democracy-friendly candidates in other countries, while being against autocracies supporting autocracy-friendly candidates in other countries (including your own).

That's really the danger of whataboutism, it basically asserts that any two actions must be considered morally equivalent, regardless of the intended aim. That is simply not the case.