Ah, yes, imperial ambitions... It's a persistent desire. I understand. But why only within the USSR? Or is this just a starting point?

Please elaborate on this! What are the benefits for the population?

Added 1 minute ago
Damn, Vic, you don't even let me work!

The benefit for the population is that, all other things being equal, the larger the group, the stronger the effect of the division of labor, and consequently, the higher the standard of living.

Simply put, if you are thrown into the jungle alone, you will not survive. If there are two or three of you, your chances are better, but not by much. A group of 100 people is quite capable of building a settlement from scratch and providing for themselves. If there are 10,000 people, life will be quite good. And 1 million people will build modern infrastructure there.

In the case of the EU and the United States, this principle does not work because they consider their sphere of influence as colonies – territories from which they need to extract as many resources as possible, invest as little as possible, and protect from external encroachments as little as possible. That is, they improve the metropolis at the expense of resources from the colonies. And then they promote this as achievements of democracy, human rights, and so on – all these benefits are only for the inhabitants of the metropolis, and the colonies pay for the feast.

100 years ago, this scheme was exactly as described in the previous paragraph; now it is more veiled, but the essence is the same.

The colonial policy of Russia, both under the tsars and under the general secretaries, was the opposite – they lifted the periphery up, both economically and in terms of infrastructure, protected it from external aggression, and did not particularly humiliate the local elite, but integrated it into the existing power hierarchy. Even in Afghanistan, during the war, they built so many infrastructure facilities that the Afghans still remember how well they lived under Soviet "occupation." And they compare it with the Americans, who only shoot and support drug production.

Independence is needed when an external force robs you or forces you to work for it. That is, when the losses exceed the profits. The example of the interaction between Russia and Belarus shows that this is clearly not the case.

Added 2 minutes ago

Be more careful with your words, don't resort to personal attacks, because that's the first sign that you've lost the argument. :)

Resorting to personal attacks during an argument is possible (although not always), but resorting to personal attacks as a way of summarizing the results is out of the question.

Added 12 minutes ago

The fact that people are stupid doesn't mean they prefer lies. No one likes lies.

Stupidity prevents people from distinguishing truth from lies, so they "choose with their hearts," and as observations of women show, it somehow more often leads them to sweet-talking, preening jerks. The same situation exists in electoral politics.

If you stop brainwashing people with the television and tell them the truth, they will all go to the Kremlin and impale Putin on a stake.

Once you figure out where the truth is and where the fecal matter that has been poured into your ears is, you will stop being stupid. As a criterion for success (or the right direction), you can use, for example, the realization of the fallacy of the quoted phrase.