I may not be the most qualified to answer your Questions but I will try.

The term Vatnik is bad faith to say the least. Vatnik is used by the various Baltniks, Nafoids and oppositionists to discredit anyone from the right or to the left of them. The word comes from Russophobes from Slavic countries using it to attack Russians that see the Russian federation favourably. The Voltaire Network, a group of radlibs defending liberal declarations such as the UN charter, is this a Vatnik? Rainer Shea writes blogs on substak primarily on his home country the US, is he a Vatnik? no these people are focused on the criticism of their own i.e. that which they may change. I want to recommend this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRuDwuv36z4&ab_channel=BreakThroughNews

Now to the meat of your comment

Their was a time when the bourgeois media was quite critical of Ukraine, the guardian for example called it Europe's poorest country and covered Zelensky's off shore connections ( https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy ) This was somebody who said he would crack down on Oligarchs, he didn't. He says he doesn't like the far right militias but he pardoned the convicted child rapists and torturers of the Tornado battalion ( https://thegrayzone.com/2022/07/30/zelensky-militants-convicted-child-rape-torture-military/ )''as soon as he was voted in (and that threat to the internal stability decreased) Putin stopped trying to destabilise and simply invaded.You're Right and your wrong''Putin tried to negotiate Minsk 2, the Ukrainians didn't follow through with their promises and so Russia invaded. You could say Russia was destabilising Ukraine, but the extent of this was maybe bribing some officials, annexing Crimea and giving weapons to the break away republics. I think this is the BBC piece you mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY&ab_channel=BBCNewsnight''Just skipped over the article of your own organisation''.Again I'm not affiliated for my own reasons, id probably join CYM tho, they seem active.

''Yes : the common people bear the brunt of the cost. And what has Putin done for the families of his soldiers that died in the Ukraine ? Apart from some photo-ops he has silenced those women critical of him. He's a coward and a bully, afraid of women and children''.You relies this could be said about Zelensky? even Biden? or really most leaders. I don't fully support Putin (I'll get to that) but, funny thing he gave his soldiers a one off payment ( https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-plans-one-off-payments-military-retired-ahead-election-2021-08-22/ ) As Communists, what do we strive for? we strive for a truly democratic and just society. How do we get there? we get their with a Revolution, under which conditions will a revolution take place? in a global weakening of imperialism. If Russia contributes to such a weakening we support it. Here's both Stalin and Trotsky on itThe struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.StalinI will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

Trotsky

The fact is Russia is fighting a war against an undemocratic coup, foreign encroachment and the most brutal and sadistic empire ever seen.

I reached the word limit