Lots of interesting sub-threads in this one.

The British were interested in buying Alaska from the Russians as well. But the Russians were annoyed with the British because of some little war in the Crimea a decade earlier. So no deal there, even if the British were willing to pay more money. With a little quirk of history, Alaska could be in Canadian hands today!

There has been lots of argument as why a militia well versed with mostly hunting technology really won't be that effective in modern warfare. Yes, such people could adapt more easily to military weapons than the general population. But it seems the Ukrainian militias are picking up the fighting ways quite well.

The typical stereotyping of communist regimes suggests that the people under this regime were not well versed in firearms because they were not allowed to own them. My experience in Czechoslovakia is that this is not true. Many families had high-powered hunting rifles and pistols. They brought them out on New Year's Eve to shoot them in the air. It was not a good idea to be standing outside in a Czech or Slovak city at the stroke of midnight. I'm not sure if this tradition still continues. But one should not assume a general knowledge of firearms is not there because there is no second amendment in these countries.

You have laid out the main reason for success in battle: ferocity. This is why Israel exists today which is surrounded by its most mortal enemies.

The Russian military is showing its ineptness in both logistics and tactics. I think Alaska is safe, even without the second amendment. In fact, China just might be eyeing Siberia as its next annexation.