Of its four access points to the sea, one is controlled by Denmark, one is controlled by Turkey, and the other two (North sea and Pacific ocean) have a tendency to freeze during winter, which makes them inoperable.

You're looking at it in terms of Russia fighting a conflict. Let's say that for political reasons, Russia wasn't seriously at risk of a conflict with any of these. The same, after all, could have historically been said of the Nordic countries and access to the Pacific, and nobody today thinks "Sweden's great weakness is that because of Norway, her shipping must travel through the Baltic. Then Russia gets port access to all of the major trading areas.

Checking online, Rajin is currently the northernmost ice-free port in Asia -- just south of Russia. While currents may play a role, that's also just across the border from Russia, and global warming is moving temperature bands by about half a mile per year.

One of the reasons why Russia is so aggressive in its foreign policy (and consequently why it's so hated in the west) is that through its history it had to contend with large borders with hostile states, and no meaningful defensible land to speak of on many of them.

Canada and the US are in the same position, but much more so, yet Canada is much wealthier on a per-capita basis than Russia. Many European countries face similar issues. They've taken the political route to accommodate each other and thus don't have the constraints imposed by facing a military conflict.

The huge amounts of land to cover and very inhospitable land in between were a nightmare to defend and is completely incomparable to any to USA by Canada or Mexico.

I'd say that Canada faces pretty nearly the same constraint that does Russia, and with a smaller population to deal with it.