The bolded has never in the history of of economics or trade been relevant. And your Canadian point proves mine, these resources are not unique. They are also available in many other countries, and freely traded across the globe. Of the staple minerals of oil, gas and iron ore, Russia has a controlling position in none of them (difference from having a large share, to a controlling share to enforce unilateral price controls).
My broader point is that a constructive relationship would necessitate a change in apparently Russia's understanding of itself and what threatens it. Because while they apparently feel either threatened by lack of influence over their neighbors, or simply an urge to invade a neighbor and shoot down an airliner every now and then, there will be no understanding with not just the US, but Western Europe either. Because I don't think Putin is willing to engage in any of that, I think we'll just stay as is. But in the as is status, as an american taxpayer (my sly method of claiming stakeholder status) I gain nothing from offering concessions to Russia. I believe in MAD theory, so I'm happy even with we have to play out the next 60 years as is.