Have you read "Look to the West" by Thande? It's still only the 1840's there but things have been looking up for the realm of the Tsars there for most of a century, by and large. And the foreshadowing of the later centuries of that timeline suggests that Russia will be among the foremost of the "Diversitarian" powers, perhaps
the leading nation.
Is that good? We don't entirely know; there are aspects of the dominant "Diversitarian" ideology that seem downright nasty to me, but if you listen to their sources the "Societists" based mainly in South America are creepier. So say the Diversitarians, who have an elaborate system of information clearances for different nations, altering texts according to preset international agreement. And they arrange historical reenactments of riots, massacres and so forth apparently to emphasize the point that different peoples live in different nations and hate each other for sound reasons and this is as it should be; the Societist thing seems to be rooted on the idea that actually national divisions are some kind of scam and there should be unity.
All we know for sure is, the Anglosphere appears to be in the Diversitarian camp, the nations we think of OTL as the rich and powerful ones, analogous to the capitalist West of OTL, seem to be Diversitarian. And weirdly by OTL standards, South America is (or was, anyway, before the Societist takeover, and may still be) economically far ahead of OTL. And oh yes, Russia is a leading Diversitarian nation.
One which may be more liberal by our standards that England of that timeline--which is not saying too much as England of that timeline might well be among the worst of the nations in the Diversitarian sphere.
So Russia has had some big crises in its past already, and may well have to weather some very nasty future storms, but it seems on the whole that Thande's Russia is by most metrics we could apply better than OTL, and no worse in other respects.
Another potential "nice" Russia may persist in "A Central East" by LordInsane; there the key seems to have been a shorter WWI the Germans win. They don't invade Belgium, Britain and the USA stay out of the war, they win sooner in the East where they concentrated their attack thereby triggering an earlier wave of republican/socialist revolution. Somehow this leads to Bolsheviks, Social Revolutionaries, and so forth all the way rightward to the Kadets playing nicer with each other, fighting things out in the Duma and not on the streets; the leftists wind up dominating a rump Red Russia--they lose vast swathes of territory to various German and other foreign-sponsored or ethnically separatist White realms, but it seems again the Civil War in the core was much shorter and less devastating and this appears to me to be the key to how they can have a balanced market/socialist directed economy under a collective democratic, multiparty regime.
LordInsane has been updating it a glacial pace, and perhaps won't ever continue it; if it stops here that rump Red Russia (not called "Soviet" though it has soviets) is at any rate better off than the USSR of OTL at that date, though it is surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile rival successor states that OTL the Soviet Union owned, and conceivably the rosy Red social order I perceive there is unstable. But it certainly has potential to secure itself both politically (by solidifying its domestic support among peasants and workers and even middle-class types who never had it so good--but being a freer regime than OTL it's all too likely they won't all appreciate it and be malcontented on the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" principle) and internationally/militarily--they have neither the total numbers nor the deep geographical buffer zones the USSR of OTL had, but they do have a relatively high standard of technical development, good morale, decent relations with the more distant major capitalist powers, and the success of their system may well subvert the more mindlessly militant of their neighbors, so they might wind up acquiring both buffer terrain and greater population after all.
Meanwhile the Germans though they went on quite a spree of acquiring broader spheres of influence seem by that very token less likely to pose a sudden and massive threat from the West.
I would dub any timeline where the Bolsheviks, or analogues of a comparable degree of commitment to a radical populist path, are more successful at developing an alternative economy, to be a better outcome for Russia. As things are, I do believe the Soviet system of OTL, for all its faults and shortcomings, was in fact a better case for Russia than the likely outcomes of any crushing of the leftists completely which for some people seems to be the very definition of a "happy Russia!

" I'm very skeptical a continuing Tsardom, or the Whites in the best case scenario, or Kerensky even if he were quite sincere about being a Social Revolutionary, could have done even as well as the Bolsheviks did, and God knows that's a low bar to clear--until you reflect on the degree of industrialization, the social transformation of the populace, the technical milestones the Soviets cleared--including doing most of the work of defeating Hitler. Maybe in a White timeline there would be no Hitler, and perhaps no predatory Germans whatsoever, but I suspect if that is the case it would mainly be because whoever does rule there fails to develop Russian industry to the point that they demonstrate the value of Russian resources and labor.
So maybe Russia can be "happy" as a decentralized, bucolic realm of peasant farmers, and they don't need to be making Sputniks and the like. Just maybe such a Russia would be left alone.
But my personal bet for Russian happiness is to have better, more successful Bolsheviks.