If your solution involves Russia getting on board then you've already failed. Russia is actually encouraging climate change because it opens up more shipping in the arctic circle. This is to illustrate that in the short term climate change leads to winners and losers. In the long term we probably all lose, but we're not known for our long term thinking.
Not sure why it is downvoted, but Russia is massively on the benefiting side of global warming. It reduces the amount of useless land, and massively increases crops yields throughout its territory.
Geopolitically, it benefits from additional pressure on Europe to accommodate the migrations caused by climate change, and all the instability it causes.
I'm sorry, but Russia, just like Canada, will not have increased crop yields from warming. It will (and does) have massive forest fires, drought, and erratic winters which swing from warm/hot to extreme cold within days.
You know what is even worse for farmers than a cold climate? An unpredictable one. It's damn hard to pull a profit farming if you can't rely on any kind of 'normal' growing conditions from year to year.
An increase in mean temperature isn't a neat and tidy "oh, we'll just move north"; it's on the whole an increase in variance.
I'm seeing it happen here in Canada, and I'm certain we'll see it in Siberia as well.
In the end, petro-regimes like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Alberta, whatever... they'll become more and more paranoid and erratic and dysfunctional as the broader crisis around 'energy' deepens. We're right now seeing our first war triggered by a cornered petro-regime on the cusp of climate catastrophe. I suspect we'll see more.
I'm not convinced Russia would get much benefit from from warmer tundra.
It takes more than a change in temperature to make land useful. I don't think recently-defrosted tundra is going to suddenly be profitable farmland. You need the right soil type, weather, irrigation, transport links, workers, energy sources, etc.
