[If Russians are warriors, they are a very poor example of them. Warriors excel at fighting as individuals, or with a small cadre]
For instance, Oda Nobunaga was a warrior. He fought his way to become the Shogun of Japan. The Emperor was technically Japan’s ruler. In reality, Nobunaga ruled the land, and the Emperor was his puppet, as other Emperors had been. He was betrayed and killed by one of his retainers, Akechi Mitsuhide, another warrior. A second retainer and warrior, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, killed Mitsuhide, slaughtered Nobunaga’s family and made himself Shogun. When Hideyoshi died, his retainer and a warrior, Tokugawa Ieyasu, killed Hideyoshi’s family and became Shogun.
That’s the difference between warriors and soldiers - warriors are ultimately loyal only to themselves, whereas soldiers are loyal to someone else or some cause.
Warriors throughout history would disagree with you. Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae were certainly warriors; yet, they died for Sparta: "Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by; that here, obedient to their laws, we lie." History is replete with examples of soldiers having loyalty only to themselves, and whose cause is often just his own survival. That is not at all to demean soldiers. I am merely pointing out that you can't pigeon-hole warriors and soldiers into two restricted categories: There are many exceptions, and many overlaps.