Not yet, but it is fashy and was great inspiration to the Nazis. It has so many core elements of fascism (as all capitalist states do), but is not yet in such a great capitalist reactionary upheaval that it would make sense to simply call it fascist.

As above, they contain many elements of fascism, with ingredients to become fascist in short order, but aren't all exactly fascist. One good way to think if it is that capitalist states and fascist states are just two variations on the same thing, and most bourgeois states aren't in fascist mode (yet).

The primary forms of fascism we talk about were Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany, which emerged as a reaction to the contradictions of capitalism and, in particular, the reactionary mobilization against anarchists, socialists, communists (the left) funded and supported by the bourgeoisie, or, more specifically, a subset of the bourgeoisie most beset by worker organization. Of course, we also see superficial similarity in all capitalist nations, such as the factory owner scapegoating brown immigrants for "taking your [white] jobs". It's not coincidence that the material driving force there are bourgeois compared to the group being mobilized. FNC and associated think tanks vs. Chuds. So why is it fascist in Italy and Nazi Germany but not modern Spain? Well, it still kind of is, because this is a shared trait. What is different is the extent to which it is a rapid reaction to a capitalist crisis in which capitalism itself is threatened by the left. Fascism is uniquely a response to capitalist crisis that, rather than resolving (even in fits and starts) in a socialist detection with the associated groundswelling of left organization, resolves through brutal cannibalization of domestic lives, industries, and state programs - and, of course, the purging of the left. 1-2-3: Capitalism in crisis, a left "threat" to capital, and bourgeois-backed reaction to the left that resolves the crisis through blood and deprivation. People point to the logic that it is the capitalist frontier turned inwards, as the frontier was a release valve for capitalist contradictions and many aspects specific to fascism appeared before this in (settler) colonialism. Also, fascism is better understood as both having a direct material basis (contradictions of capitalism and anti-worker mobilizations) and psychological, the two are intertwined. The forces of reaction require a foothold, one they gain by creating and exploiting things like race, religious conflict, gender roles, etc.

No.

Very good question. FDR, a liberal socdem, also faced a serious crisis of capitalism, an insurgent left, and bourgeois elements mobilizing against them. However, his socdem approach was different from outright fascism, as it acted more to coopt and defang the left and to invest in industry and welfare rather than exterminating the left and stripping social programs for parts (not that the US didn't run serious anticommunist campaigns and kill their leaders). But if you ask various folks, then you might say social democracy is the left wing of fascism, as they often (1) enable fascists and (2) are essentially fighting the same anticommunist battle to preserve capitalism.

He's a nationalist, a capitalist, and an anticommunist that scapegoats using reactionary thinking to address (comparatively lesser) crises of capitalism, so he will have a lot in common with fascists (just variations on the same thing). Under changing conditions he could be one. But under these conditions, he isn't, and by "he" I really mean the state of the Russian Federation, as it is actually doing the opposite of what fascists did, economically. Rather than strip the country bare to rescue capitalism with blood, it's premised on building up production and economic planning. Keep in mind, of course, that capitalist governments routinrly fund and support fascist militants, particularly against communists, and this includes Russia.