If one does not deploy dialectics, one can essentially argue that Russia went from a massive empire with a monarch, to an even larger empire with a dictatorship (the liberal understanding of history).

I don't need to apply dialectical thinking to say that's bullshit. I can point to the structure of ownership of society, to full-employment, to economic planning without markets, to universal healthcare and education and pensions, to the material help to Vietnam and Cuba and the PLO and to a wide array of anticolonial movements, to the lack of classes in society through material analysis... I really don't see what's dialectical about what I said and not just materialist cold-hard analysis.

While instead Russia can be understood as a series of internal contradictory processes, such as the pursuit of modernization (an idea) without the state, bureaucratic or educational institutions to support that pursuit, for example (the material). A potential negation of this is communism. However, it isn't that simple, and with the external pressure applied, the negation of the negation could potentially look a lot like what Russia under the USSR looked like, with it's own internal contradictions

This is mostly mumbo jumbo repeating the word "contradiction" for some reason instead of just analysing the process with material evidence without the need to use that word every 3 lines.

Basically, the USSR may have somewhat resembled Imperial Russia, but we know that it only looks like that because of the negation of the negation

?! No! It's not because of "the negation of the negation", that's just philosophical dribble!