Can a charge of "whataboutism" itself be a deflection?

“Whataboutism” is a form of the “tu quoque” fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent by pointing out hypocrisy without addressing the actual argument. “A is wrong for doing X”. “Well, B does X too so it doesn’t matter!” Whataboutism is often used to shut down discussions.

Whataboutism is a problem when the argument has not been discredited, as in:

Russia shouldn’t meddle in U.S. elections.
The U.S. meddles in elections too.

Pointing out that the U.S. has meddled in elections does not mean Russia can be excused for doing so. It doesn’t disprove the argument that Russia shouldn’t meddle in U.S. elections.

But here’s the problem: pointing out that the U.S. has meddled too is not necessarily an attempt to absolve Russia. Sometimes pointing out hypocrisy is an important demand for consistency. It’s often brought up that the Soviets basically invented whataboutism. When the U.S. would criticize Soviet brutality, they would say “what about the way you treat blacks?” Now we can be certain the Soviets were not sincere in their concern for black Americans and misdeeds on the part of Americans do not absolve the Soviets of their own misdeeds.

But saying “that’s whataboutism” is a way to avoid discussing the hypocrisy. America could dismiss the Soviet claims, but the elephant in the room is that we did treat blacks horribly. Just because the Soviets were insincere in bringing it up doesn’t mean it ceases to be a problem. In this way a charge of “whataboutism” is a way of deflecting from one’s own hypocrisy and inconsistency. So in a sense, charging “whataboutism” can shut down discussions in the same way whataboutism itself does.

What are your thoughts?