Not whataboutism at all; with historical context you might be able to see that this isn't a principal stand but possibly has some, yet unknown, commercial reason.
or experience and an authoritative source on the peril?
It is relevant to the discussion to point out Jim Balsillie's relation to this topic. It's not a refutation of the point being made though. It's entirely possible that he has ulterior motives for making this argument that aren't based on it being morally (or event factually) correct, but it may be correct (or incorrect) separately from that.
Personally, I would classify these objections about Balsillie's arguments as ad hominem attacks. If the point he makes is logically coherent, what does his personal motivation it matter?
Here the concept has been extended to large multinational corporate relations.