Nah, that's fucking stupid, people just don't like a reactionary state invading it's neighbors.

Russia is a progressive state at this moment in history as it is waging a war of national sovereignty against NATO imperialism and horrendous ethnic chauvinism by nazis in Ukraine against the ethnic Russian population in the Donbass

Just like how Stalin pointed out that Egypt and the Emir of Afghanistan were objectively revolutionary despite their anti-socialist and monarchist views whilst the British imperialist Labour party were reactionary despite that, formerly, they were "for" socialism

The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm

When shit starts going further south in the west, people will radicalise, and with a lot it'll be further to the left. Just don't expect them to start loving fascists just because they're anti-american.

Fascism has no meaning outside of imperialism (look at Hitlers talk with Lord Halifax on how it was "intolerable for Germany to have no colonies"). Russia has zero gain from destroying the Ukrainian State that Nato has turned into the bastion of white supremacy and neonazi training camps. Proven by the imperialists saying themselves this will "overextend and unbalance Russia" (which foreshadowed the Ukraine war, written in 2019) or Lindsay Graham saying the "Russians are dying" with an orgasmic smile on his face

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html