Yes, the accusation you've launched is one of blatant hypocrisy; the use of such accusations against those raising an issue as distraction technique to draw attention away from the issue raised is exactly the definition of Whataboutism.
You can probably construct an argument where the hypocrisy of some speaker advancing the argument would itself actually be relevant to the argument being advanced [0], but that's almost never the case in any real discussion; instead Whataboutism (and then tu quoque fallacy more generally) has the same rhetorical purpose as guilt by association or as hominem; create a negative emotional charge attached to some group associated with an argument, and use that to get people to dismiss the argument without considering it's merits.
The accusations in the motivating instances for naming Whataboutism were often both indisputably true and the same type of wrong as the act they served to distract from.(which is as close to relevance as charges of hypocrisy get.) They were still fallacious, just as this one is, irrespective of its truth or.degree of analogy.
[0] e.g., if the argument specifically included as a key point that the speaker did not engage in hypocrisy.
You can cry "whataboutism" all you want when confronted with examples like these ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... ), but don't be surprised or dismayed when no one listens.
Sure, it's a “thing”, specifically a name based on rationalization given to the cognitive filtering mechanism which a number of fallacies, notably as hominem and tu quoque, target.
But it's never relevant to the merits of the argument; targeting moral authority is always an effort to avoid consideration of the merits of the argument.
If so, I sympathize. I get that a lot, myself.
Whataboutism is pointing at an unrelated problem, to divert attention from your problem. "But what about African Americans getting beaten!" to draw attention from bread lines and GULAGs - that sort of thing.
This is an incredibly related problem. The two cannot be discussed in isolation. This is quite literally, one of the top countries for 'interference in democratic elections' having an issue with its election being interfered with by a foreign power (In a relatively[1] minor way.)
Notice how none of the talking heads or politicians are taking a principled stance against interference with elections - they are just taking a stance against interference with their elections.
[1] Relatively, in terms of impact, effort expended, size of the United States.