Once again, it seems people are equivocating about the use of the terms 'empire' and 'imperialism'. If you're using the Leninist definition, then probably no. But this is not the only meaning that people are using when they are calling Russian imperialist. They mean something different and it has its own valid meaning and legitimately negative connotations. By only using the Leninist definition most 'Empires' in history would not actually be empires at all. It's a semantical debate, not a real one. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that Russian would, if it wanted and could, exert its political power more broadly broadly. The invasion was, yes, triggered and caused to a great degree by American imperialism (in both senses), but that does not imply that Russia is necessarily a progressive historical actor. Other powers can aspire and struggle to an imperial position within an increasingly or potentially multipolar world. Russian's international activity doesn't seem to indicate that they wouldn't take that opportunity. They are a mafioso-capitalist, nationalist state whose discourse is filled with Great-Russian pretensions, and that political ideology doesn't come out of nowhere by accident.

I agree that Russia is not at the same level of fascisation as Ukraine, where its particularly intense, but that doesn't change the fact that Russian has become a deeply chauvinistic, nationalistic, racist, misogynistic place in general. These problems were ofc not solved in the Soviet era, but they have become far, far worse. And you can see this much of their military and their most publically influential thinkers. One of the weirdest experiences honestly when you watch Russian political talk shows is that they are both at a far more intelligent level of conversation of debate than comparable western political discussion, but also how deeply set alot of the reactionary ideology is. Or go on Russian telegram. It will take 10 seconds to find some kind of transphobic or homophobic trash about how the west will lose because we're all becoming gay or trans apparently. Honestly I pray I never have to see what a fully fascist modern Russia would look like.

At the end of the day I agree that the US has been the more dangerous actor, including for the reasons another person above has mentioned, namely the bloodthirstness of their policies and their unpredictability. It seems that the Russian state is currently far more intelligently run than the US's.

Honestly I would say they have pretensions to imperial status over their immediate historical sphere of influence, but they would not be one on the distinct, full leninist definition as of yet, unless they developed in the longer term within their own sphere of influence in a multipolar order.

Also I think the latter question is loaded or abstract, and is basically implying that you're morally obliged to say no to the question because, I'm guessing, that would be to support the US and delegitimise their right to self defence and not getting bombed? Firstly the masses of Ukraine also have a fucking right not to be bombed and raped and tortured by either side, so that defence argument if you're implying it, would apply here. Secondly whether or not a state is reactionary from a local, regional, or global political or geopolitical perspective is somewhat independent of whether or not the US is.

At the end of the day the argument I most sympathise with I seen is simply stating that it would be better for us in the long run due to geopolitical consequences of multipolarity. But then people are basically saying that the lives of innoncent Ukrainians are a worthwhile price to pay. It's doubly ironic because often the same leftists want to have their cake and eat it from the safety of their bedrooms when it comes to these serious and bloody geopolitical questions, because on the one hand they're claim that you can never justify war or violence against the innocent for consequentialist reasons (say, which would favor the US, also tbh from a consequentialist perspective its almost never true that what the US state wants is best for all involved), while on the other hand being willing to make consequentialist judgements in favor of Russia invading and waging this war. I'm not even saying the latter arguments are illegitimate, but it's interesting to see people who don't see the contradiction there.

Also, more concretely, why would they have that power to defend themselves? Modern states do not have that power without the international relations that that brings with it and which, above a certain level, implies a capacity to exert political authority, power and hegemony beyond your formal borders. A modern capitalist and nationalist state, i.e. a non-socialist state, will structurally tend to that whether we want it or not, as part of being in a broader capitalist global system, if it does not want to stay stuck in a periphery status.