They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence

You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their "historical border claim" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?

Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow

Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.

Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects

Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.

The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.

Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country's means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.

You've made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can't support that claim?

But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership.

If by "well documented clear ties", you mean "people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit", then yes. That's not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it's literally the IMF's capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.

But it's hardly classless or stateless.

The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it's not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn't stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.

The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.

Pragmatically I'm anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves.

You really don't see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn't spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?

What's built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken

Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.

Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie

There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.

Every single time

As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it's been applied, that it's everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they're not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they're deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.