This is not the correct assessment, unfortunately. As Lenin laid out clearly in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, imperialist wars are qualitatively different from wars of the previous eras in that they are fundamentally rooted in the expansion of finance capital.

We no longer live in Lenin’s time, when finance capital was still largely subservient to industrial capital before the rentier class launched their own counter-revolution after WWI against industrial capital. The post-Bretton Woods world turned the US empire into a fully financialized empire that leverages its now fiat currency to extract surplus values from the rest of the Global South. Michael Hudson described this new form of imperialism as “Super imperialism” in his book of the same name in 1972.

Russia cannot be imperialist simply because their financial capital is far too weak to even be a player in the game. Russian oligarchs all stored their wealth in dollars and euros, lived lavishly and owned assets overseas in Western countries - the result of the Ukraine war was the sanctions against Russian oligarchs and confiscation of all their assets overnight.

Why would the Russian oligarchs launch a war against NATO and have their assets confiscated almost immediately? The anti-West “nationalist” capitalist in Russia is simply far too weak to play a major role. This is why the Russian state had to practically take over the economy themselves since 2022 and utilized the power of its fiscal policy to stimulate domestic economy under heavy sanctions.

Who are the imperialists then? It is between US and the EU - the two major financial blocs that are competing for domination through their respective currencies: the dollar and the euro. The war in Ukraine is an inter-imperialist war between the US and the EU and, as it has now become clear, the defeat and the end of the EU economic prosperity and the eurozone financial bloc. Russia and Ukraine are the sacrificial pawns in this game.

In terms of Russia, it is more helpful to think of what is happening in Russia today as a confrontation between industrial capital and finance capital, with the Cabinets of Minister (the state representing industrial capital) opposing the far-reaching influence of the central bank (representing finance capital). This is a thesis that Hudson had proposed and it paints the US-China conflict as exactly in this relation: with the US representing finance capital that sought to defeat China representing industrial capital. Only the latter can create the conditions that will lead to socialism. This is an ideological clash where the contradictions have been intensified in recent years, and it has to be resolved somehow… most likely through war.

As Lenin had observed a hundred years prior in Imperialism:

Thanks to her colonies, Great Britain has increased the length of “her” railways by 100,000 kilometres, four times as much as Germany. And yet, it is well known that the development of productive forces in Germany, and especially the development of the coal and iron industries, has been incomparably more rapid during this period than in Britain—not to speak of France and Russia. In 1892, Germany produced 4,900,000 tons of pig-iron and Great Britain produced 6,800,000 tons; in 1912, Germany produced 17,600,000 tons and Great Britain, 9,000,000 tons. Germany, therefore, had an overwhelming superiority over Britain in this respect. The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?