This chapter advances the grounded theory by linking categories into a dynamic model of whataboutery in the UN Security Council. It traces the evolution from an initial “poisoned well” loop of reciprocal attacks to a factworld-centered model explaining when accusations become circular: strong factworlds enable constructive defence; weak factworlds incentivise counterattacks. Variants handle clashes between equally/unequally persuasive factworlds. The model is then tested on Russian rhetoric in UNSC debates on Georgia, Ukraine (2014, 2022), and Syria, demonstrating declining factworld credibility, heavier reliance on tu quoques, and growing rhetorical isolation. The chapter closes by revisiting the research questions and implications raised.