Putin’s modus operandi, when he invades a country in one way or another, is to govern through the use of local strong men, not by democratic means. This obviously mirrors his own system, but it also means that he doesn’t have to engage in the kind of expensive (and frequently futile) nation-building that we do. He simply gives the keys to some thug, gives him a limited amount of aid, and tells him to sink or swim; if the former, he can always be replaced. That limits Russia’s exposure and gives Putin a measure of plausible deniability.
Donald Trump, for similar reasons, clearly embraces this approach. It is not too difficult to imagine President Trump cutting a deal with Putin in which the US and Russia agree to collaborate to keep dictators in power in the Middle East, and perhaps elsewhere, on the ground that the alternatives only result in terrorism. You can even imagine a scenario in which Russia and the US intervene militarily to keep Sisi in power in the face of a popular revolt in Egypt.
After the Napoleonic Wars, Russia, Prussia, and Austria formed what was called the “Holy Alliance” in an effort to keep liberalism and nationalism under control throughout Europe. It would be fair to call the prospective Trump/Putin reactionary collaboration the “Unholy Alliance.”