[pqtyw]

> develop such an enormous landmass

Why would that matter? Australia and Canada are doing reasonably well regardless of the overwhelming majority of their territories being empty "wasteland" (economically).

If anything relatively low population coupled with huge amounts of natural resources per capita is one of the best positions to be in.

>relinquish part of its global influence and territory

By in and large their relinquished the more highly populated areas not the empty ones.

[Eliah_Lakhin]

It works as long as a country primarily spends its income on internal development. Today's Russia is a relatively prosperous country with high living standards, at least in big cities. Perhaps these standards are even higher than in some EU countries. And they are certainly higher than at any point in Soviet history.

However, to a large extent, this is the result of cutting expenditures on projecting Soviet influence abroad. The Soviet Union had enormous spending on subsidizing friendly regimes and their economies around the world, as well as maintaining a military presence. The same applies to some former Soviet republics that the USSR had to subsidize for decades.

I think we are observing similar processes in the United States today. They are attempting to cut spending and perhaps even reduce their military presence simply because they cannot afford it in the long term without sacrificing their own prosperity.