>>...Russia would be the gem of the game.
That might be true for a strategy game, but geopoliticaly speaking it's kind of a turkey. Great wide expanses of flat land that's relatively unproductive (climate and soil quality) so it can't support enough population for self defense - and it's primarily wheat - the grain we grow on the worst ag land). No riverine transport system to speak of. And the ag land is so unproductive that huge acreage is needed meaning that a road network is uneconomic. Look at a map - notice the rivers that flow *north* - those deltas thaw last making for seasonal floods, turning what might have been somewhat productive river bottoms into death traps.
I'd agree that nuclear weapons (even ones that only *might* work) changes the calculus, but they're still a tiny-for-area population on a vast open area. They've been invaded *so* many times that it seems to have damaged their psyche. And serfdom into relatively recent times hasn't helped.
Ukraine's a good counterpoint. They're also on a flat piece of land with few geographic barriers - but the land is relatively productive. If serfdom existed, it was long ago - and the spirit of the Cossacs - hetmen and warriors in place of lords and serfs. It also didn't have the option of expanding in order to protect itself. I suspect surviving the Holodomor also has something to do with resisting Muscovite domination.
Disclaimer, I have read a lot of history, but almost all of it had nothing to do with Russia of Ukraine...