I think the author is confusing whataboutism, bothsidism, and tu quoque. And in debates in current international developments the difference is important.
Whataboutism is a tactic, a diversion from the actual topic. They should be ignored because the opponent is in no way interested in answering the question and will come up with another one the second you engage.
Bothsidism is usually a fallacy of false equivalence. If the equivalence is not false bothsidism is not a fallacy but it might be an attempt at derailment. Any real life example I can think off will be a hot potato that might blow up so… When Cardassians blamed Bajorians for using violence to achieve their goals that was bothsidism, pointing out that when the Dominion took over Cardessia it was the same thing that what Cardessia did to Bajor it was not bothsidism.
Of course thinking that this defends the actions by the Dominion on Cardessia would be a tu quoque fallacy.
Tu quoque is the fallacy if thinking that hypocrisy negates a truth, strictly speaking it is a pure non sequitur as the actual argument is not addressed at all. If I would blame somebody for being overweight that would be hypocritical but pointing out that I am as well as a counter argument would be a fallacy.
