Obviously the GDP has many problems, even by purchasing power parity. E.g., if you give a third of your salary to capitalists through rent then the g.d.p. is higher than if you gave a tenth, or, if you avoid polluting among other things, then you won’t pay to clean up and the GDP won’t go up, the same goes for traffic accidents, buildings that aren’t made to last, or any other unecessary expenses.
Some have argued to distinguish between qualitative(, education, health, …,) and quantitative(, advertisements, pollution, planned obsolescence, negative externalities, …,) growth.

In nominal terms, Russia would only be the 11th :

Taken from https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1939190990289674403 :

Your regular reminder that looking at nominal GDP for international comparisons is completely non-sensical because it artificially inflates the GDP of countries with a overvalued currency and vice-versa.
The fact that a Mc Donald’s Big Mac costs the equivalent $8.07 in Switzerland vs $2.46 in Indonesia shows this: according to the nominal GDP calculation, producing a single big mac, with identical productive inputs (same labor time + same ingredients) producing an identical output (a Big Mac), produces almost 4 times more economic activity in Switzerland than it does in Indonesia. Which makes no sense whatsoever…
Which is why you should always compare countries based on GDP PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which erases this artificial distortion by adjusting for local price levels, giving you the true productive capacity of each economy and a much truer notion of domestic living standards.

That’s despite the disasters of WW2(, who killed 14% of the soviet population, 27 out of 195M), and the economic destruction of the 90s :

The obvious immediate goal for the e.u. after 1991 should have been to include Russia in order to multiply their territory by 4(!) and make up for “their” colonial losses if they had any bit of ambition, instead they preferred to ruin a potential enemy rather than raise a potential ally/‘extension of territory’. Or it’s indeed their goal but they’re hiding it by antagonizing Russia, or it’s in the name of their “values” that they’re exaggerating Russia’s authoritarianism, while simultaneously amplifying it by their attacks.
They don’t seem to perceive Russia as a way to extend the european territory(, since these atheists will refuse to extend it in the direction of islam)(, in France we don’t even care to strengthen our ties with french-speaking africans, e.g. through medias), and hence don’t mind ending up with the smallest continent in the world, ok then 🤷.
(As a note, my view of such territory expansion would be having the same army and very few common laws, as well as counter-powers to avoid a tyranny even with millenias, i’m in favor of city-states with very different laws/cultures, but that won’t ever be able to wage ©overt wars against each other)