I was mostly in agreement with your points until the part about judging. No, I believe we should judge and condemn war crimes like those taking place in Ukraine. Instead of refraining from condemning such flagrant atrocities lest we also be judged, perhaps it is more reasonable to instead do our best so that when we're judged fairly, we aren't guilty of atrocities too.
Also, one needn't directly defend the slaughter of civilians in order to be standing on shaky ethical grounds: there are many ways to indirectly--sometimes inadvertently--lend credence to or justification for heinous acts without coming right out and saying one defends or supports them. If I argued that Russia had "strategic reasons" to invade Ukraine and shell cities, I wouldn't directly be defending the murder of civilians, but I would be playing into the hands of Russian propaganda and still justifying an action that paved the way for said murder.
Intentions of people who defend Putin may differ, but the end result is often the same: any attempt to justify his invasion more often than not ends up being a justification for so many other atrocities, whether intentionally or not. Many who defended the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq also thought the U.S. was fighting for freedom and defending innocents. That didn't change the actual outcomes of either war.
Ultimately, if and when Putin is ever judged, it would presumably be by some international tribunal in a formal legal setting. (At least, that's what we can hope for.) So, yes, I agree with you that there should be judgment and legal retribution for these atrocities, but not by "us" or any single government. All too often, the U.S. government has acted unilaterally and recklessly when it comes to responding to world events, and it's for this reason that some of us may be a bit wary of those who seem to be heading in that direction.
Another area of contention which appears common is disagreement over whether the interpretation of the events in question is accurate. In every war, there is bombing, death of civilians, abhorrent behavior by some of the troops towards the local population, atrocities, rape, murder. Even "our" side has done it, although we might claim that we do it less than the "other" side.
Moreover, when one or more of our soldiers goes rogue, we prosecute them to the full extent of the law (although that's another topic in itself). We do our due diligence, or at least, give the appearance of such. But it seems quite clear that the Russians aren't doing this, or perhaps Putin is even ordering his troops to commit these atrocities. So, if there's an answer to the question of "whataboutism," then there it is.
But that doesn't really change the situation at hand.
Another aspect about this is the notion that there is no morality when it comes to geopolitics. That's kind of a "realpolitik" view which views the world from a coldly business-like, pragmatic standpoint. It's more focused on national interests than on morality. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it "Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations." That's perhaps related to the idea of judging, but also looking at it from the standpoint of an individual country's national interests and how it may affect their response to world events.
It's probably more of an ethical question, but I don't see it as a matter of "defending Putin," as some people seem to be a bit too loose with those kinds of accusations. I see it more as a matter of questioning whether our own government's response to this crisis has been rational and responsible, both in terms of our role as a NATO partner but also in terms of our overall national interests.
