I think the conclusion here hinges entirely on the question, "Is Russia imperialist?" The answer itself, in my opinion, is not so obvious. I see a lot more people drawing a conclusion one way or the other than I do analyzing the economic and material circumstances which form the basis of their conclusion. This is forgivable. The economic situation is complex to begin with, many of the primary sources are gated behind a language barrier. To give the situation a proper analytical treatment, we need various specialists to converge and sort through the details (which is not the most reassuring thing to tell people at the peak of a crisis).

When Russia is held up against the United States, the conclusion that "these are the same thing" is laughable. If we want to determine whether or not Russia is imperialist strictly based on capital exports or the extraction of super-profits, I don't think it is quite there yet. On the other hand, we can see the manifestation of several prerequisite trends, including the development of industrial monopolies and the concentration and increasing dominance of finance capital.

I find the question hard to answer because contemporary Russia truly finds itself in this sort of "in-between" phase in the development of imperialism, and this conflict has highlighted a few of the traps which can result from treating imperialism as a binary "yes or no" condition and basing all further analysis on that conclusion.

"No war but class war" and working towards the defeat of our local bourgeoisie is solid ground to begin from, but to understand this crisis better and anticipate where it is heading, we need a much deeper analysis than "Russia isn't imperialist" vs. "but they're acting imperialistly."