I feel like this question needs a couple of background pieces of information clarified; the first being the history of the East Slavic Peoples, and the second being the Russian history of Cultural imperialism1 among those same peoples.
History of East Slavic
In about 880 the Varangians (eastern Norse equivalent of the Vikings) founded a state that we know today as the Kievan Rus'. At its largest extent it covered most of far eastern Europe from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This was largely the political expression of the Varagian trade network between themselves and Constantinople.
While the rulers of this state were initially Norse Varangians, the basal population were proto-Slavic-speaking. After a couple of centuries, so were the rulers. This set these peoples off into their own cultural path, resulting in their language separating from the rest of Late proto-Slavic. We call the new language these (Rus') peoples spoke Old East Slavic.
In 1240 the Kievan Rus' state was destroyed by the Mongols. The eastern portions ended up subjects of the Golden Horde, while the western portions of it eventually ended up bundled up into the expanding joint kingdoms of Poland-Lithuania. This split the cultural areas up into two, where the languages evolved into Ruthenian and Russian2. Ruthenian in the mid-modern period split into Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Rusyn.
Old East Slavic language tree.
History of Russian Cultural Imperialism
From nearly the moment the Russians threw off the tartar yoke, their leaders began styling themselves as the true natural successors of the medieval Rus' people, effectively erasing the separate existence and history of the Ruthenians and their descendants. Here's a bit of detail from a Ukrainian source:
In 1547, Ivan IV of Moscow, known later as Ivan the Terrible, was
crowned Tsar of all Rus, despite having no control over most of the
former Kyivan Rus principalities that became a part of the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania. The name Tsardom of Russia became interchangeable with
that of the Tsardom of Muscovy.
On Oct. 22, 1721, Russian Tsar Peter officially changed the country's
name from the Tsardom of Russia to the Russian Empire, thus fully
appropriating the name of Kyivan Rus and shaping its imperial
identity. He also proclaimed himself as the emperor of all of Russia.
A couple of decades later, Catherine the Great would see an urgent
need to write a new version of Russian history, fueled by the rapid
expansion of the Russian Empire during her reign.
On Dec. 4, 1783, Catherine issued an order to set up a "Commission for
making notes about ancient history, mostly of Russia," which was
tasked with fulfilling her vision of history. This version effectively
proclaimed the Russian Empire as the successor to Kyivan Rus.
In Russian sources, when Ruthenian-speaking peoples were mentioned, they were instead just given adjective terms as other lesser kinds of Russians. "White" for Belarusians, and "Little" for Ukrainians. Russia itself of course in this context called itself "Great". Due perhaps to the close ties between Russian and English royal families, or perhaps to the Russians being the only ones of the 3 with their own state, English has had a tendency to accept this Russian framing.
This Russian tendency to see themselves as the only true heirs to the Rus' has taken on a decidedly sinister aspect in the last few years. The head of the Russian state had made statements denying the existence of any Ukrainian national identity, and has taken steps to destroy it both politically and ethnically. The latter currently has garnered him an international arrest warrant on war crimes charges.
While there's arguably a difference of opinion here, and English has historically sided with the Russian position, I don't think that's a good argument for continuing to do so. There's no logical reason why the Russian language and culture should be considered privileged over that of Kiev itself (Ukrainian), or even over that of Belarus, as a successor culture to the Kievan Rus' and their Old East Slavic language. We don't consider Spanish to be the one true successor to Latin and the Roman Empire, over and above French, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian, just because there are far more Spanish-speakers running around today than the rest combined.
I'd also argue that continuing to do so today would be immoral. No matter your feelings in the linguistic/propaganda dispute, we do not want to see this site take a stance that provides aid and comfort to the perpetrators of Genocide. Personally, I won't do it, and I'd like to think the vast majority of the users of this site (not to mention the StackExchange network itself) are with me on that.
So given the above, yes the current wording of the Russian tag needs to be fixed. I'll post a suggestion as a separate wiki answer, to encourage friendly edits.
In addition, I'm noticing that the tag usage guidance:
The largest country in the world, spanning territory from the eastern
edge of Europe to Siberia in northern Asia.
... is completely devoid of any usage guidance. That needs to be fixed as well.
The last paragraph contains various international rankings and organizations, which is now 11 years later wildly out of date (largely due to the shrinking international standing of the Russian Federation). Also, the 4th paragraph containing one good piece of alternate tagging advice could use some expansion.
1 - In fact, the first known use of the term was a 1921 OED reference to "cultural imperialism of the Russians"
2 - I just say "Russian" because the periodization of the language across time is still under dispute, for reasons that may become clear later in this post.