I didn’t make up any definition of imperialism. John A. Hobson was the most significant theorist on imperialism pre-Lenin and Lenin’s work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This is the most relevant definition of imperialism over the last century, and accurately explains the world position today where wealthy elites in the global north offshore production and utilize state power like the millitary, sanctions, and coups to keep a class of compradors in power in the global south. It’s super-exploitation for super-profits. Russia doesn’t do this.

Sounds interesting, I will look into it. Not sure Russia doesn't do this though. Not by means of capital, but it definitely extracts wealth from the global south, for example by using mercenaries to take over mines.

What would be more legitimate is me saying that you have created your own definition. This is the definition of Imperialism:

imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.

Trying to change the meaning of a well established concept is not helpful. While the definition you posted above is certainly interesting, it should not try to change the meaning of an existing word (if it even tries to do that, maybe it's a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation by you).

As for Russia destroying language and cultures, no, that’s silly Please inform yourself. This is honestly not even controversial. Why do you think there is only one official language in a state as large as Russia, while Switzerland has four? France was very successful at exterminating all other languages on its territory as well, btw, and it was also an imperialist state for a long time and perhaps still is in some sense.

The USSR had no colonies, and neither does the Russian Federation. You're aware that colonies don't necessarily have to be overseas?