Firstly class struggle deadlocking is very unstable, because it means that both classes have to mach each other exactly and not taking any other avenues to increase their power.
I said it was short-term. Why are you bringing this up?
If you are going to discuss Marx's analysis of Napelon III then you perhaps should admit the serious issue in his analysis: He didn't follow it to its natural conclusion. This was probably intentional as I assume he didn't like the implications of his own argument. Bakunin warned Marx about this problem. Marx isn't god. He was just a guy and he could be wrong. The anarchists pointed out in this instance where he went wrong: Bonapartism when taken to its natural conclusion shows that the capitalist class derives its power from the state itself and that state will seize authority over capital when the existence of that state is threatened. It showed that the bourgeoisie only derived status from the state. The state can elevate others into the ruling class if it so chooses. This is the issue that split the International. Marx saw all oppression as stemming from capitalism itself. The anarchists saw capitalism as a tool of state oppression. Removing capitalism would not remove the state and thus didn't remove oppression. The difference here is Marx saw capitalism as the a priori cause of oppression whereas the Anarchists pin it on the state.
Russia is simply an example that proves the point anarchists made: state power perpetuates itself. It is an interest unto itself that will subsume capitalism when threatened. This isn't to say Marxism is wrong at all. Rather, it doesn't explain some things well. This is one of those times when it doesn't do so. Leftists have other tools of analysis in our kit we should use when required.
Thirdly I don't really see the special pleading for Russia to be something else than a capitalist nation born out of the first wave of counter-revolutions against socialism. The economy might not be exactly the same as in the long established capitalist nations like the US but that doesn't mean much as there have been barely 30 years since primary accumulation took place.
I didn't tell you it was socialist. I told you it was something else. If you are going to continue to make your argument then you should follow it to its natural conclusion. By your logic, there is no socialist nation on earth. Every single nation that calls itself socialist does so through state ownership and management of capital. In fact, economists use the percentage of state capitalization of markets as their indicator of if a state is or is not socialist.
What I am arguing is simply that under current conditions it is fitting to describe the ideology of the many politicians that change their ideology seemingly on the fly as opportunists.
This is an artifact of western political thought - an obsession with ideology. Outside of the US and EU, that driving need is not there. The best example of this I can give you is Deng's answer to the question of if the Chinese economy was capitalist or communist - it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse. It is entirely possible to have a state that doesn't have an ideological reason to exist. As the anarchists said - the state perpetuates itself. Surkov and his ilk are examples of that phenomenon.
The positions which are usually the basis for ideology have been so readily changed around that trying to use them as a basis for a categorisation is futile (for example early on Putin could be characterised as pro NATO, Something that he is now railing against).
No, you fundamentally misunderstand what was happening there. The Russian state was too weak to oppose the US at that point. He was never "Pro-NATO". He was conciliatory toward the west because, at that point, the oligarch class had not been completely stamped out. That class of people was eager to be part of the west. The class of people represented in Putin did not have the same interests. Russia simply could not reasonably oppose the US at that point. It was a pragmatic choice born out of necessity. The goal of that group was and still is, self-sufficiency and independence of the Russian state. The only operating ethos is Russian nationalism and all means will be used in their mind to achieve their goal. The reason Russia opposes the US now is because its ruling class built Russia up to be able to do so. It's not because Putin changed his mind. The Russian elite never changed their mind about the issue, they simply had more room to maneuver.