Have you read Lenins works? Because if you have I don't understand how you could take that article seriously. The article tries to take the 5 points and break down why Russia doesn't fit them.

Starting with

1)the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life. and I guess 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves

Lenin goes into great detail in chapter 1 about what constitutes a monopoly, how they become cartels and how cartels turn into the foundation of economic life which then turns capitalism into imperialism. The examples of monopolies and cartels are universally on a national or local level, never on a global level (probably because he simply couldn't fathom the world we live in today).

The writer doesn't actually even address point 1). I'm just going assume he lumps it together with point 4) and pulls out a global dick measuring competition to say:"look, Russia has a small peepee, therefor Russia can't be monopolistic". It doesn't matter where Russian enterprises land on the global scale because a backyard monopoly is still a monopoly. If the global monopolistic cartel is so much bigger than whatever Russia has, why hasn't the international monopoly taken over Russia and exploit it for profits? Because Russian oligarchs together with the Russian government have created their own national cartel. Companies from countries can only play by their rules which is literally what Lenin is talking about:

Cartels come to an agreement on the terms of sale, dates of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc.

Hence, as per point 1 Russia fits the imperialistic definition. As for point 4, CIS exists as an extension of Russian sphere of influence. Considering other imperialists can't really divide that region implies the existence of an imperialistic force within that region, Russia.

2. the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy.

The author of the article goes back to the same "small peepee" argument, which I already disputed in point 1. A backyard monopoly is still a monopoly.

But I'll give the author some benefit of the doubt, they couldn't have assumed the control the Russian cartel has over their own banking. That is now apparent with all the sanctions the west as thrown at Russia, which would absolutely destroy the banking sector of any normal country. But Russia for the most parts seems unfazed by those sanctions. This can happen only if there's a cartel running the entire thing, as they have enough power over the market that the influence of external actors can be negated.

No I'm not convinced that point 2 does not apply to Russia.

3. the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance

This is the only point of contention. The article writer approaches this from 2 angles. First is that idea that an imperialistic country would export high technology goods as opposed to raw materials, and the countries that export raw material fit the pattern of "semi-developed third world state". And if you don't look too deep that seems to be true, most third world countries do export raw materials and import the high technology goods created from those materials. However there's a very clear exception that the writer brings out but refuses to acknowledge, energy (which includes gas and oil). Imperial powers absolutely would (and do) export energy, even in its raw form, because not only is it the perfect commodity (because it's always in demand) it's also extremely profitable if you can control its pricing. I would say the complete opposite to the writer, Russia is an imperialistic power because they have gas and oil to export.

The other aspect of this point is the export of financial capital. The writer once again goes for the "small peepee" argument and claims that because other imperialistic countries can export financial capital more than Russia then it means Russia can't be imperialistic. But then the writer also acknowledges that Russia does in fact export financial capital. And here's the contentious point, does the amount of financial capital exported from Russia gain exceptional importance or not? I would say it does but if you want to claim it doesn't then I'm not going to argue over one point. Whether they do or not does change the outcome because the other 4 points still indicate imperialism.

5. the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed

If Russia is not an imperialistic power then how do you explain the war in Ukraine? If you subscribe to the idea of imperialistic capitalistic powers then Ukraine is a territorial dispute between two imperialistic powers. You've established that one side is "the west", what is the other side? By the power of deduction it can only be Russia.