When we start inventing moral equivalency between Britain and Germany we're on shaky ground indeed. Where Germany was looking for war, Britain certainly was not. Britain was in no mind to attack anybody or to join in anyone else's attack. Britain was not only full of Nazi sympathizers, but full of Communist "idealists" too in the 1930's. No, Britain was not spoiling for a fight. To them communism was a grand and glorious experiment.
Stalin, for all his bloodthirstiness, and for the Communist ideology's central focus on world domination, was certainly a cautious and prudent expansionist. He was simultaneously much more dangerous than Hitler because he was cruel but not insane, and less dangerous because his moves could be anticipated as they were based in logic.
Aside: we're responding directly to a question from the OP, who has the ability to hijack his own thread here.
I think.... Maybe.
No Hitler, no war. Once the war started, Russia's aim, if they were not attacked, would be to pick up cheap gains, as they did in the Pacific. I'm sure in the spirit of cooperation with Germany and helping to "guard their back" Stalin would have gobbled up what he could and pushed the limit, carefully gaging how much gobbling would distract Mr Hitler enough to shove some panzer divisions east. Then he would backpedal enough to keep that from happening. Each crisis in the West would be a new opportunity to play Pacman again.
But this is pointless speculation because Hitler WAS going to attack Russia. What, including Africa, didn't he attack if he could reach it? He merely attacked everything on all sides until the point of exhaustion and defeat. Just another great German strategy from World War II: self-defeat. It must have been terrible to be a professional military man in Germany, watching all your might and ability be squandered by that fool in an unnecessary war with no good end possible.