I can quote Lenin too, buddy:

"…War is a continuation of politics. It is necessary to study the policy before the war, the policy leading and leading to the war. If the policy was imperialist, i.e., protecting the interests of financial capital, plundering and oppressing colonies and foreign countries, then the war resulting from this policy is imperialist war. If the policy was national-liberation, i.e., it expressed the mass movement against national oppression, then, as a result of such a policy, it is a national-liberation war.

<…>

The “defence of the fatherland” on the part of a national-oppressed country against a national-oppressive country is not a fraud, and the Socialists are not at all opposed to the “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

To deny “defence of the fatherland,” i.e., participation in a democratic war, is an absurdity which has nothing in common with Marxism. To embellish the imperialist war by applying to it the concept of “defence of the fatherland,” i.e., by presenting it as democratic, is to deceive the workers, to go over to the side of the reactionary bourgeoisie."

Lenin V.I. “On the caricature of Marxism and on “imperialist economism”.

Russian military is there at the request of DPR/LPR to defend them, remember?

On a more serious note, not a lot of Russian oligarchs are actually winning from what’s happening, as the lazy fuckwits never wanted to bother recovering from deindustrialization of the 90-s, which is something sanctions are going to force them to do a bit of, and Russian capital simply isn’t stronk enough to be imperialist. It’s a unique case of a peripheral economy that can tell the biggest ones to go fuck themselves every now and then by the virtue of inheriting USSR’s military bling.