Is it possible to say specifically? The problem of traditional definitions being distorted in the US is mostly a product of there being a strong middle class built on the benefits of US imperialism. Many of these people are of course technically proletarian but there interests align with the bourgeoisie. As time goes on we’ll continue to see fewer people benefiting from US imperialism, the middle class will collapse, class consciousness will develop out of poor and predominantly urban communities as it has generally tended to in other countries.
I’m not sure why the US can’t be compared to Russia because workers are exploited in service economies not just industrial ones, except it raises the problem that Russia (and China’s) revolutions were to some extent dependant on the collapse brought about by war. Which leads in to the idea that many Western communists have that a) the US will not merely decline but collapse independently of revolution and b) that somehow communism is any position to take advantage of that. and both those beliefs seem doubtful to me.
I think the unique characteristic of the US is that, barring some unknowable post-apocalyptic scenario, any revolution will probably have a distinctly liberal and multicultural nature driven by a range of different causes, which is why intersectionality is so important, and making people understand that problems like climate change are fundamentally economic problems.
Of course the petit-bourgeois and elites will pursue fascism, but the culture and diversity of the US makes it hard to see how any kind of traditional fascism would succeed domestically. Tsarist Russia is closer to the US than Weimar Germany.