To preface this answer, please understand that getting any two historians to agree on something with as broad a scope as the question you ask is a pretty difficult. Therefore, I plan to present a few representative cases of Russian historians and their general perspectives on the nature of the government of the Soviet Union.

To start, the answer to your question most directly is that the Soviet Union (including any of its progenitors like the RFSFR, the Communist Party, even going as far back as the General Jewish Labor Bund) is/are not generally perceived positively by the educated classes of Russia today. Academia and the intelligencia were among the most persecuted groups during Soviet times-- whether because they disagreed with the absurd pseudoscience of Lysenkoism that was mandated as canon until the sixties, or because they were involved in dissident movements throughout the seventies and onward, or maybe they found themselves wrapped up in one of the many political purges that occurred as new cliques came to power during the nigh 70 year rule of the Communist Party. There were special research facilities called Sharashkas colloquially where scientists were held and forced to perform whatever experiments/research the Soviet government demanded of them. The leader of the Russian space program, and man responsible for the USSR's victories in many aspects of the Space Race, Sergei Korolev, was literally pulled out of a gulag (forced labor gold mine) in Siberia upon receiving a commission (re: order) to perform the research and development that would eventually become the Russian Space Agency and ultimately RosCosmos today. In short, having any kind of unorthodox or contrarian stance on just about anything was a fairly risky endeavor until about the eighties.

The next part of the answer is a qualification of what you consider a historian: Lev Trotsky considers himself a historian (among other things) and in that role even wrote a three-volume History of the Russian Revolution. I'd recommend it insofar as it is a great primary source for the events leading up to the October Revolution, but would similarly advise to take Trotsky's analysis and chronology with a big ol' grain of salt considering he heavily revised his first two volumes, and wrote entirely the third, from either internal or external exile. The same is true for Stalin's writing from the time period-- really great as a primary resource, but also really unreliable personal propaganda from a man embroiled in quite literally, a life-or-death struggle within the party.

Historians such as Trotsky and other sympathizers of the Old Bolsheviks who are already professed Marxists of some stripe (mostly thinking of guys like Zizec and Chomsky here-- though both are critical of the USSR at times) are most likely to harbor the kind of sentiments that you outline in your question: the October Revolution was righteous, but corrupted and oftentimes, this corruption is directly personified by Stalin's assent to power. This is not generally the case with a typical modern Russian historian.

Consider the following examples for further reading (unfortunately most of these guys only publish in Russian):

• Leonid Mlechin: historian and author of numerous books about the revolution itself as well as its perpetrators. I've never heard Mlechin make any commentary to the effect that the USSR was alright at its foundation but spun wildly out of control. In fact, he is generally quite agnostic to the occurrence of the revolution and mostly sticks to the facts. He's lectured on the efficacy of Stalin's rule or the lack thereof, the Soviet secret police, and a bunch of other topics concerning the nature of the Soviet government. His YouTube channel is filed with top-notch Russian language material.
• Nikolai Uskov: historian and author, previous editor-in-chief for the Russian edition of GQ and Forbes. Here's a 2014 article he wrote (in Russian) titled, Do Russians Require the Strong Hand? Implying in leadership. Use Google Translate on the whole page to read for yourself but he explicitly denounces the motives and actions of the USSR during the repressions of the 1910s, 1920s, and elsewhere, leading to the reasonable conclusion that he does not share the beliefs you mentioned in your question.
• I realize your questions asks specifically about Russian historians but I think it's also important to mention that general consensus amount historians of Russia (regardless of nationality) is almost unilaterally against the proposition as well.
• As a counterpoint slash bonus round-- one "historian" who would consider the Bolshevik Revolution to be just and righteous is Alexander Dugan, whose career followed an arc similar to David Irving's-- he was a generally respected speaker and thinker in Russia around the time of the publication of Foundation of Geopolitics in 1997 but has since gone off the deep end of historical revisionism and just out and out propaganda. If you're not familiar with Professor Dugan's work, he has been all but discredited in Russia as a serious intellectual given his latter-day conversion to radical National Bolshevism (NazBol) which is quite literally-- however much it may sound like a contradiction of terms-- a particular strain of Bolshevism which advocates for a simultaneous national chauvinism and revolutionary Communist government, as well as a call to perform genocide on various peoples throughout the region.

TL;DR: modern historical thought generally holds the Communist Revolution of Russia to be disingenuous in its claimed intention of the formation of a worker's paradise and that consensus is mostly the same in Russia.