Russia has an extraction industry, but it doesn't "take over" mines in Africa. Trade does not equal imperialism, imperialism specifically relates to super-exploitation for super-profits, and Russia doesn't have the ability to do that.

As for your definition of imperialism, it's much less useful and is far more vague. It's entirely unsurprising that bourgeois economists would erase the true nature of imperialism in the modern era by de-linking it from capitalism, and moreover this definition fails to analyze why imperialism happens, and why it happens in greater and lesser extents, and how to end it forever. Lenin's analysis answers all of that. It is the bourgeois economist that has blunted the theories of imperialism in the modern era, not the Marxist-Leninists.

Again, I re-iterate: it was the bourgeois economists who erased the link between capitalism and imperialism! John A. Hobson had the most popular and coherent definituon of imperialism, which Lenin advanced further, and this definition of imperialism is the one that has guided state policy throughout the last century! Anti-imperialists of the last century have all been adhering to Lenin's definition, be they from the USSR, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, South America, Africa in general, Palestine, etc.

And no, the USSR had no colonies, period. Not overseas, not nearby.

You don't have the background knowledge necessary to have this debate if you think it is the Marxists that have the less wide-spread definition. Perhaps if you only think western, pro-imperialist discourse is valid, but that's chauvanism.