There's no elected leader, but there's an implicit one: the one organizing it, who might just give you the cold shoulder for any number of reasons. Anarchism is best defined in Wikipedia, and isn't really limited to "small scales". It is most validated when it is a movement existing within authoritarian states, out of necessity, which is why Revolutionary Action joined into the Revolutionary Committee among other groups, which is what you are referring to.

By itself and out of context, and specially when it manifests in societies that are actually functional, democratic, and with adequate social policies, I favor my own definition, but it can't really be defined practically and objectively without context. "No (to your Russian) rules except the ones I agree with (Ukrainian national stability and identity), otherwise GFY" sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma is what Revolutionary Action is doing to Russia as it attempts to annex Ukraine, thanks for the example.

Well, if you were someone playing a game with them, then you can incorporate this. The point is that it's not obligatory and is based on the people participating

There’s the state neighbouring anarchists who can’t form a state and so probably anarchists exist protected within the borders of some state unless some state respects not a state

However a state cannot acknowledge existence of something that doesn’t exist and has no joint body of commonality. Hence genghis khan moment. A state conquers the ownerless land.

Thus emergents from this Darwinian history are states. Squashing individuality in name of security against genghis khans.

Anarchism remains a purely theoretical thought exercise or a relic of the far past tribes