anti-georgian nationalism
No, it's something taken from Stalin's purge of the military. He removed most of the people who weren't Russian or Georgian.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainian
Nope:
Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev had Russian parents.
Khrushchev's father (Sergei) according to family tradition* had apparently been sent away from the family farm when he was old enough and ended up in Yuzhovka. William Taubman, Khrushchev: The Man, His Era.
Brezhnev's family apparently migrated to the region as the industrial jobs were opening up in the 1880s or 1890s**. Paul J. Murphy, Brezhnev: Soviet Politician.
some universities also taught in the local language
And some absolutely did not:
Postwar Soviet policies allowed for an ethnic Lithuanian nation, while pushing rival Belarusian conceptions toward oblivion. Right after the war, an interwar Lithuanian communist took the reins in the Lithuanian SSR, and a Lithuanian-language university was established in Vilnius. The Belarusian Communist Party was meanwhile Russified, and wartime suffering became the basis of standard Soviet Belorussian history. By 1970, when a modern narrative of Lithuanian history was thoroughly institutionalized, national history had all but disappeared from Belarusian curricula. By 1980, when most schools in Vilnius taught in Lithuanian, not a single school in Minsk taught in Belarusian. Timothy Snyder, Reconstruction of Nations
all regions got industrialized though some were at a much more backwards starting point...
Their industrialization was often misguided at best and purposefully rigged to fail after dissolution at worst. Most of the countries would be better off had they developed independently.
If your metric for colonization is "extraction of resources", then surely in the period between 1955 and 1990, in which the USSR was a net exporter of raw goods and hydrocarbons and net importer of industrial goods in the Eastern Block, Poland and Czechoslovakia were colonizing the USSR?
Sarah Paine refers to this as a Doughnut Empire:
Normally when you think of an empire, mother Central is the most developed part. And then there's the periphery where all the natural resources are taken away. That it was an inverted empire. Russia is the donut. The rich places are places like Czechoslovakia and Poland had been much richer places. And so the Russians – serf owners – are sucking in all the wealth from these places. And I think that's another reason why the shattering of the Soviet Union when they lost all of their enserfed Eastern Europe, why it was such a mess for Russia, they did not realize, and they still don't realize the degree to which they were living off the wealth, product produced in the west, the European portions of Russia that since became independent.
But the end result is still the same. If Soviet Union left the Eastern Europe alone, it would be almost as prosperous as the Western Europe is now. They took our best and gave very little in return.
there was no Tsar in the USSR. That's why wealth inequality rose through the roof in all former republics after the change ro capitalism.
The sad reality of Russia was that the people who were in charge of the dark half of the shadow economy gobbled up most of the former state enterprises put up for sale. They knew how market economy worked and had amassed enough money to buy them out. (Not just rapidly value losing roubles, but US dollars too.) You know, the same shadow economy that you claim was a non-issue.
But at least you're not simping for Putin's Russia, so you have that going for you.