A number of fact check points have already been made. The use of quotes, while good quotes, that do not relate to the history and geopolitics of Russia and its zones of influence apparent and possibly adding to the points regarding the superficiality of the piece.
How the piece is written without mentioning Great Britain is strange given how Russia tied to different periods of British history and the manner the English (deliberate use) played the European games of balance and counterbalance between the powers across the continent.
Russia does have navigable waterways - whether they are well developed and used to full effect is another set of questions - the direction and linkages of these waterways is part of the geography that is Russian founding and expansion thereafter - go back to the Slavic and other influences leading to the founding of Moscow (Apologies, my recall is not total so I am posing points rather than doing what you have done in offering perspective as fact).
You have not referenced more recent history akin to your own perspective. Recent work brought forward by, notably, The Economist, reflects the differing opinions and manner perspective is choosing elements of history - this, for example, placed some emphasis on the manner selective use of history has been - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2014/10/01/a-web-of-lies. More recently, a series of 'by invitation' reflected further on this.
Geopolitics and the strands of global powers and power blocs is not entered in to. The issues not just of access to resources but the considerations written and rewritten regarding the 'Heartland' with dynamics of centripetal forces, zones of schism and how culture and counter-culture have been apparent when ideology and the different desires of personalities and ideologies have clashed. And how they have clashed given the technological manner warfare and influences have changed, continue to change.
Good, different, perspective on Russia from an American angle. Superficial without acknowledging this superficiality by posing questions and developing lines of argumentation and further reflection to bring forward the refracting nature of history when placed in geopolitical contexts as we have seen during our lifetimes. How these reflections and refractions are built on taught history, over a longer period is not truly addressed. So says a Brit abroad who spent a day back in Deptford and visited Peter the Great's, as well as my own undergraduate days, in a much changed UK.
