Kind of like the way that Genghis Khan is now kinda seen as a figure who burned away all the old forests of previous empires that were strangling attempts to move forward and let new sprouts grow? The thing is, of course, that it's one thing to say that with the historical distance we have. It's quite another to try to suggest to the millions of people his armies killed in any way "deserved" to die or that it's a good thing in the long term that your entire family line is being obliterated.

Either way, it's impossible to know whether in a thousand years, this will be seen as some kind of turning point and the historians of that time will be saying "Well, it's a shame that so many had to suffer and die but here we are, under global communism! Using these materialist analysis techniques and advanced simulations, we have determined that these events were necessary for us to be here, so they're justified!" or whether this is an event entirely tangential, or even detrimental, to whether humanity as a species advances towards liberation from capitalism.

Therefore, I can only conclude that this war will result in the suffering of millions in the present day given Europe's current sanctions and so there's no reason to suggest that this is, in any way, a good thing. Maybe it's a good thing for certain actors, but those represent an utterly minuscule portion of the population. It's easier to be like "Wow, look at these events and how they'll affect and destabilise the imperial ambitions of US, NATO, and Russia!" if you aren't in Ukraine or eastern Europe right now, trying to get away on trains, or having your husbands, brothers, and male children ripped away from you as you try and escape. For them, they're thinking "Oh my god, how the fuck am I going to feed my family? What happened to my cousins? When will I get to return home?"