First it would help if you actually linked to a specific questions/answers, instead of making a general remark.
I have no idea, for example, why this one would be proving your point: +3/-1 is what it got. Wasn't closed, wasn't deleted.
On the other hand, the explanations why things got closed seem equally unconvincing, without concrete examples and links to said questions/answers.
Second, you are correct. There is a tendency to close/DV many Russia-supportive questions these days.
You do realize SE sites aren't for discussion about things, but for questions and answers?
to pick a comment, seems to me a fairly disingenuous, but highly upvoted argument.
Most questions will generate a bit of discussion/opinion, so arguing that ANY question which may generate SOME is taboo seems rank horse manure.
I recall an answer of mine getting off to a rocky start because I agreed with some concerns about Russia sanctions and fertilizers/grain exports. I am not defending my answer as such, but the first comment was "it seems you agree with the question! bad!".
Third, your premise is over-broad and over-general.
there is any sign of vaguely not-European, not-NATO, not-US perspective anywhere in the question
The second question I ever posted here, and most upvoted question, for me, to date is titled Is the US unusually prone to walking away from signed treaties/accords? : +71/-3, 12k views Clearly not a particularly negative response, to a not particularly positive question about the US.
Granted, many US/West-critical questions get DVed, but not all. There are plenty of pointy/snarky questions/answers about the US that get a good reception. For example, anything about climate change, police brutality, race relations.
When a party is perceived to be in the wrong, at least on some points, it does affect community response, no doubt.
Fourth: why any general tendency to DV a country?
Let's pretend for a second that we are living in 1969 and people are defending the US activities in Nam (which at that point including bombing Cambodia and Laos).
How do you think votes would be going? Sure, a good deal of US posters would be pro-USA, but remember that by that time there was also a sizable anti-war movement in the US. However, you could roughly expect most non-US voter to DV US activities.
We saw the same trend here on popularity with pro/anti Trump postings. For "pro" Trump postings, as soon as they diverged from being high-quality the DV and close hammer came down. Meanwhile questions like "Is Trump a fascist?" generated considerable discussion, but were hard to close.
So, yes, the popularity of any person/country/cause may influence the community's voting patterns. The community is mostly based in countries which do not think much good of the special military operation.
I am not defending it, but I am linking it to my second point, yes, there is a bias.
Fifth - the quality of pro-Russia posts is rather uneven.
Some are thoughtful and may raise good points to question the viewpoint presented in Western media and make people resentful and upset. It is regrettable when they get downvoted.
But some just seem to be regurgitating the media pronouncements of a country which claims there is no war going on and has laws sending people claiming otherwise to jail. For example claiming the Ukrainian government is run by Nazis.
Do you really expect those types of posts to do well? Why should they? And what they do is tar many of the better answers/questions with the same brush.
Another lot consists of essentially whataboutisms.
Sixth - the perception of Russia's activities is negative.
I use the word "perception" for a reason. Let's pretend for a second that many of the pro-Western posters are being misled by pro-US/pro-NATO propaganda.
Russia news is being dominated by reports of aggression against a smaller neighbor, vitriol from its government and reports of repeated attacks and atrocities against civilians.
IF you take the above as the context in which many posters respond to Russia-related questions/answers, what is so surprising about a general negative sentiment?
One fact that is not very much up for debate is the transition from we-shall-not-attack, pre February, to the invasion in February. Many of us just do not trust Putin's government one bit.
For myself, while I undoubtedly tend to vote following the patterns you criticize, I have also, at times, acted in the opposite direction, when reasonable questions/answers got closed or when unreasonable anti-Russian diatribe was posted. However, please remember I, like other users, am not a moderator and not obligated to follow a strict pattern of neutrality.
I will vote based on my perception of the facts and that perception is not currently favorable to a Putin-led Russia. If you disagree with that, convince me that that perception is invalid, don't insist on Russia's right to be seen favorably, or even neutrally, at this time.
I did upvote this Q. Downvote/upvote posts as you fit, but don't do it out of spite and appreciate that one of the values of this type of site is to have you question your assumptions and give you some insights on the viewpoints of others.
That's a symmetrical opinion about both sides of this debate.
Not really on topic here, but...
Please, people, don't carry over "keyboard warrior"-ing into real life. I am French and was living abroad during the Rainbow Warrior episode. It was thankfully short-lived news, but uncomfortable, esp after I initially confidently told my friends "no government would be stupid enough to bomb such an obvious target".
Many Russians expats probably think extremely poorly of Putin at this point or at least feel heavily embarrassed. Our local news (Vancouver) reported 82% of Russian expats supporting Ukraine, for whatever value you give to those "polls", 4-5 months back. Consider taking a page from Monty Python and don't ask about the "special military operation".
Be nice, Russians that you personally know probably didn't ask for this shit! And those they did, as my US buddies would say: 1st amendment!
NATO is not at war.