It is not technically collusion.
-- Reort on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
It's not possible to come to a legal conclusion on a question which lacks a legal definition.
So the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian election interference, of which there was a breathtaking amount[2]. It's also telling that Trump, who never has spared an unkind word for anyone, has never spoken ill of Russia for his entire term.
It's also worth noting that the special counsel was never allowed to indict the President, or even say that indictable conduct occurred, due to Justice Department policy. The absolute strongest available language that they could use was that their report didn't exonerate the President, and that's exactly what the report said.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-tr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interferen...
How does this end up on Wikipedia?
If you're interested in more, there's the very sizable list, "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
I am from NL, and I will raise you : our current Prime Minister promised all citizens € 1000. Guess what? We never got it.
Pretty basic garden variety bribery.
Is there any reason to believe the project would not have been approved without the alleged favors?
Or is everything involving Russia now its own "Russiagate"?