Obviously, it's never justified to "hate" or "fear" an entire country.
Obviously, it's absurd to see the current Russian regime, as it is absurd to see the current regime of any country on the planet other than the foreign policy/economic policy consensus in the U.S., as singularly evil or singularly dangerous.
That said, it is legitimate to openly critique or oppose the actions of a particular regime, and to critique the head of state/head of government of that particular regime, if you feel the actions of that regime or that figure are reactionary, repressive, bigoted, or involve an unnecessary emphasis on the use of military force.
There is a massive difference between speaking out about the Putin regime for the reasons former U.S. president Obama, former U.S. Secretary of State Clinton, or the current British prime minister do, on the one hand, and the reasons Pussy Riot, the Russian LGBTQ community, or the independent, non-CP Left within Russia do so.
And it's entirely possible to honor the valour of the Red Army/partisan troops in the defense of Stalingrad without validating any of the current military/diplomatic choices Mr. Putin makes, and without buying into the argument that Putin's international actions are in some way "anti-imperialist", and without falling into the trap of accepting that his extremely homophobic social policies and his ridiculously paranoid restrictions of dissent are the eggs which must be broken to make this breakfast's omelet.
I hope everyone here can accept the distinctions I'm making on this subject. Would be interested in hearing any critique anyone has to offer on what I've posted above.