The October Revolution wasn't just a coup, no, I disagree with that qualification. It was a revolution with all the social and political implication that has. Otherwise it would mean it was just a power grab of a small group within the old system. While it is true that only a minority actively took part in the events of November 1917, given the widespread support and workers activity in the soviets you can not reduce it to that minority. The later dismissing of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly doesn't retroactively turn the October Revolution into a "coup".
The Revolution started since February - and it was truly The Revolution for most intents or purposes since then.
What happened in February is that part of the revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, seized power and later themselves directed the revolution. It is as much of coup d'etat as events of 9th Thermidor with fall of Robespierre, regardless of support for it. Nor it makes another revolution - just that Soviets named this event as The Revolution to make themselves heroes.
Dismantlement of the assembly showed only that they denied democratic vote and the Republican rule that was suggested by February Revolution, not just the government of Kerensky. Which is also a reason why, despite it being coup in nature, it is a Revolution of it's own - it transitioned further into the other social and political order.
There were clearly two conflicting sources of power, one revolutionnary with the direct democracy of soviets and one through the democratic election with representative democracy. You highlight the problem between cities like Saint Petersburg and Moscow on one hand and the farmers on the other hand who voted for the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
The issue here is that includes not just "farmers" but absolute majority of the former empire, especially neglecting national republics (Ukraine seceded after that, despite it's mainstream being actually largely in favor of staying as autonomy, as far as 90% of politicians or so). In other words, majority of the former Empire didn't accept it as it denied any political participation for them.
That is a bit too quick and one-sided. We are talking about a civil war, initially the parties opposed to the revolution could take part in soviets but afterwards that changed and they boycotted these institutions anyway. In my opinion you go too quickly from November 1917 to war communism. From reading your post one gets the feeling of solely a "coup" by Lenin and some inner circle, and then immediately proceeding to centralise all power and go against all ennemies. That is too simplistic, things were not set in stone.
Sure it is a simplification, I agree here. Reality was much messier.
The intentions, however, were still those. Centralization was also seen as important - in fact, there was a lot of rush to fight against national republics, disarm Czechs (which ended up as a disaster for Bolsheviks), get rid of reactionaries, needing to reestablish rule in most lands. And, of course, taking full control back to Moscow - not under imperial consideration this time, but ideological (which arguably changed later under Stalin).
The other thing is that they didn't intend to let most separating republics go - and often it was Bolshevik support from Moscow that was instrumental to establishing Soviet rule there. They guised it as a popular Soviet uprising, but it wasn't always the case - for example, Bolsheviks in Ukraine had little support, especially outside of the industrialized regions.
In fact, Ukrainian People's republic's goverment composed of Social-democrats, social-federalists and Social-revolutionaries (+left wing polish minority party). It was left-wing, a fact which is majorly overlooked - and the real peril was that Bolsheviks wanted to make one-party rule of themselves and annex the land. They later majorly accepted Ukrainian SSR, became communists and... were executed en masse in 1930s. Such cases.
I don't think anyone excused anything. Polish communists did support the Red Army, while on the other hand nationalists were opposed as you said and viewed it as tyranny. We can not do retrospective judgment, but I agree that Poland would have become a puppet state. A question I don't have an answer to however is if Poland would have become a part of the USSR federation by 1922 with a status similar to Ukraine.
The support for communists, however, wasn't there. And it is not just nationalists - nearly all political parties and societies opposed Bolsheviks.
And yes, they had all reasons to worry about it. The only Soviet republic that wasn't annexed into USSR was Mongolia, for special reasons. Poland was dejure Russian Empire, so there would be little to no issues to annex it in their eyes, especially when USSR wasn't seen as Russian state yet.
That is clearly a fool's game. The Polish nationalists promise something they can't deliver in exchange of getting to annex and polonise Galicia.
In 1919 Ukrainian People's Republic was almost defeated and had not much space to argue.
Such maps are always tricky. As I said, rural areas were mostly Ukrainian, while cities Polish. So you have bigger loosely populated spots painted in green while more concentrated population is not shown so explicitly
Anyway, Lwów as a major Polish center was non-negotiable that time.
It is undeniably easy to fall into trappings of one side argument when discussing a matter of a long-standing rivalry there.
The issue of Lviv is same as the rural Ukrainian lands in more Polish parts of land. There was no easy compromise. Closest to it that satisfied was Curzon line + annexation of Lviv with small land corridor.
