There is enough good in Ivan’s suggestions for basic cases, still too rigid.
1R To strafe Ukraine with less than full power is the worst, enduring the fighter’s defensive fire without destroying it.
Taking it (or attempting seriously) yes, withdraw if not enough forces remaining yes (say 2ftr vs 1tnk 1ftr).
West Russia is the MUST in any case. Just because 6inf 1art do not have anything else to do On top of WRU, then Ukraine or Belo are reasonable choices.
1G take Egypt and clear Med yes. Clear Ukraine yes, to try lightly if reasonable (2inf 1tnk 1ftr vs 2tnk) but to hold NO, likely impossible.
Hold Karelia, yes, if survivable. Russia can make it a dead zone (say 7inf 1art 2tnk survive in WRu and build 3inf 3tnk)
Later builds: mostly inf, yes. Short impulses of all-tanks can be decisive added to earlier inf waves, and if Allied coastal threats are tolerable. More fighters can also be good in some combinations.
1UK counterattack Egypt yes, if enticing enough (up to 3 tanks). The Borneo amok is still not bad.
1UK+1US group to Algeria (not Tunisia, not an A&A area) yes, if no overwhelming air+fleet in range. Not if GE 5ftr 2bmb vs 1btl 1des 4tra 1sub.
Evacuating India can be a necessity, better than losing it with troops and AA too. AA helps enough Russians.
1J the stated combination (Pearl, China, Buryat) is suicidal against the maximum of each.
Building 2 IC instead of 3 tra can be a forced necessity if enough (UK) naval threats survive nearby.
1US building 3tra 3tnk 1inf is too Germany-oriented, a Japanese fleet threatening Canada makes it a catastrophic mistake. Even 3tra 3art 2inf is too troop-thin.