Hi. I'm not capable of answering the question proper without doing a complete research on it, but I would like to point out one aspect of your question.

You equate dekulakization with outright killing of kulaks. That is not entirely correct. People accused as being kulaks were sometimes executed, but the policy itself was not of physical extermination of people, but a systematic extermination of a class, via the dismantling of their property and social base.

So the campaign of dekulakization DID include executions and camp convictions (for the quite sizeable portion of "kulaks" who were deemed to be politically active,tried to conceal their assets, were also former officers, large business owners, or religious leaders — all of which is often a mark of a prosperous farmer), but only as a small part of the overall action. Its main body by far was the wide scale confiscation of property and permanent relocation, to specific new "resettling locations" (sometimes simply less hospitable and slightly more remote than their original place of residence, sometimes extremely so, in the farthest Northern reaches of Russia).

Reading about dekulakization, you will note that the worst excesses of the campaign (which included indiscriminate violence, robbery, and murder) correlate with these punishments visited on lots of peasants who weren't even remotely rich, owned just one or two heads of livestock, and rarely or never hired seasonal workers — the campaign often hit the "middling" peasants/farmers, or sometimes even the poorest ones, as long as they weren't liked by a person in charge of local party structure, or allowed them to inflate their statistics and look good to the upper management. Simply put, the campaign often gave local people the tool to punish their personal enemies, and/or profit at the expense of their neighbors by confiscating and redistributing their property. The very stretchable definitions of a kulak and podkulachnik ("kulak flunkey", i.e. any associate, including employee) allowed this.

Dekulakization had a terrible impact on the most professional and enterprising part of Russian peasantry, but in most cases it did so by uprooting them and their families and forcing them to survive and build everything from scratch in an inhospitable new location. Also, in the remote parts of the former Russian Empire, the reach of dekulakization was greatly dampened: after all, the bosses were far away, and the places themselves were the kind of places the kulaks would be sent to, anyway.

For instance, in this way, my own great-grandfather, a genuinely prosperous local farmer/trader who often engaged in his favorite sport, horse sled races (so evidently had a lot of disposable income), was in large part spared the dekulakization: his friends in local government warned him in advance of the campaign, he downsized his household, and laid low for some time. He suffered no relocation or incarceration. As my grandparents explain, it was because "Moscow was far away", and this happened in the middle of Southern Siberia.