To get away from the current conflict, let me explain where my red lines would be for Russia in another case. Take Moldova, its obviously a Romanian country and would have been a part of Romania if the Soviet Union/Russia wouldn't have grabbed it. But Transdniestria is another matter, there live Russians and its now a separate republic, sort of:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Transdniestria
That's a clear case of Romanian vs. Russian interests. The Romanians not even theoretially belong to the Russian historical states sphere as much as Ukraine does, even if they are Christian orthodox. Even the percentage and historical presence of Russians in Transdniestria is much weaker than the claim on the Eastern Ukraine Russia has made now, being restricted to the core areas in Donbas. In a normal, peaceful world, Moldova would just let Transdniestria go and the Romanian rest of the country determines its own fate, by either joining the EU, or directly joining Romania. But of course there's a problem:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Transdniestria
Another case of how do you solve this peacefully and in a fair way, with a compromise acceptable for both sides. I see absolutely no right of Russia on the rest of Moldova, but Transdniestria has a different historical and ethnic background to the rest of the country. Still the claim is much weaker than on Eastern Ukraine. Moldovans wanting Transdniestria back would have way more of a legitimate claim ot make than the Ukrainians do, at the moment.
I simply believe in the right of self-determination for a people in a region, as long as there are no very strong arguments against it, which would relate to serious threats or worsening of a greater region and the world.
In these cases, I just think that if these countries want to go and leave the Russian sphere of direct influence, they should leave those parts of the country behind which don't want to travel with them. Simple as that. If, e.g., Moldova would accept the departure of Transdniestria and then decide to be pro-EU and probably even pro-Romanian, and the Russians would still intervene there, it would be a way stronger case for anti-Russian measures than what is happening now in Ukraine.
In Ukraine, all demands they made are reasonable and proportionate, and the Ukrainians didn't react in any meaningful manner at all, but just played with the Selenski regime the big guy with the back up of an even bigger one, namely the USA. That's for me a completely different situation.
As it would have been, just way worse, if Russians would have made aggressive demands against say the Baltic states or even worse Poland or Romania. That would have been unacceptable for me, its the opposite red line.
You have to realise that the Ukrainian case is specific. Its not meant as a whitewhash for everything Putin did or might do. Its not even a whitewash for that level of escalation he used in Ukraine, because from my perspective its not worth it, its too much suffering, too much human losses, too much of a risk and threat. That's why I also say Russia did wrong, not because of the Western position on international law or the Ukraine was right, both were wrong in this case, but because from a purely humane perspective, as well as the strategical risks, for Russia and the world, its not worth it and shouldn't have been done.
That not withstanding, the responsibility for this escalation lies also with the US intervention and especially the Selenski regime. They are as much responsible for the escalation because they did nothing to prevent it and just acted aggressively and confrontational.
Basically I'm saying both parties are guilty, I don't see how the Selenski regime is an innocent victim. Claiming so would be ridiculous. The common Ukrainian and Russian people, they are the victims of this gambling of Putin, Selenski and Biden regimes.
CNN doesn't just quote, they always frame. The image they paint of "our hero in Kiev, Selenski" and how they acquit him from any guilt for these murderous escalation is just disgusting. That's the kind of one sided coverage which they want the people to swallow by censoring any alternative media which might contradict their framing and narrative. That they can lie and manipulate unwithspoken, so people can't even have access to unfiltered facts. I know how much crap and fake news circulate, but the percentage of good information they ban is still high and its too important for a factual approach on things, which they, stations like CNN, obviously don't want. They want the exclusive right to construct the narrative.
And if you support that, you shouldn't talk about democracy, because without a truly free press and media, there can be no truly democratic state. Referring to the suppression Russia does, in defense of such measures, when Russia is in a decisive war, surrounded by enemies, is ridiculous. Even more, if the West is democratic, truly so, he has to keep up different standards. But obviously, he doesn't.