Why didn't these regions become independent states?

By this logic Russia itself shouldn't be fully independent but under foreign rule of some sort.

Even if that's true you basically admit that they could still be "independent", at least formally, while trading with Russia, just like Armenia and Kyrgyzstan
And even without that all these Asian countries + the Central Asia ones and Mongolia could form their own economic union.

Because
1. Most are locked inside Russia so there's no point of actually gaining independence
2. National sentiment is weak as hell.
3. Russians are the majority there.

Also there is one geopolitical model of Russia which I particularly like. It says that Russian axis of development is North-South and everything East to Urals is classic example of colonies. Obviously, Russia became an empire after Ivan the Terrible conquered Kazan and Astrakhan khanates. A direct result of that was the establishment of said axis. While this axis exists, Russia exists. Modern Russia is essentially a symbiosis of Muscovite (and loads of Slavicized Finnic people) and Tatar identities.
It also has some empirical proof to itself as well. Russia was at its weakest twice during the 20th century and both time the key battles were fought in the same exact place: Tsaritsyn, Stalingrad, Volgograd. Going beyond Volga frees territories of prosivional Idel-Ural and breaks that axis, thus splitting Russia back to Muscovy and a bunch of states along Volga and Kama rivers. I think it's interesting. Pic related.

>Historically, they've been beset by invaders from the Steppes regions to the South and West
This is a meme which was spread during the 19th century in order to better rationalize Russian attempts to get a piece of the Ottoman pie. The country that had constant problems with the steppe niggers was Ukraine because it was right next to them but even there the pictures of apocalyptic catastrophes historians loved painting often seem questionable.

Thats why Russians are always ruled by one single non-Russian.
>Stalin was Georgian
>Chruchev was Ukrainian
>Putin is a Finn from Karelia

I wonder if this idea had any importance during WWII in the German plans for Russia.
They did support an independence movement of those regions.

>Why didn't these regions become independent states?

Wishful thinking by westerners that want their rivals to breakup somehow.

>because barely any of those regions could ever sufficiently supply enough food or revenue to support themselves.

That's just not true. Chukotka, Tatarstan and Yakutia have a pretty high GDP per capita, for example

>Wishful thinking by westerners that want their rivals to breakup somehow.
It goes both ways.
wsj.com/articles/SB123051100709638419

This is normal.
Wanting your rivals to be broken apart so you could easily exploit the remnants seems pretty logical and pragmatic. This what empires do.

Because oligarchs.

It's going to splinter in next 10 years.

>Also, why were they made "autonomous" republics instead of full republics like Armenia or Ukraine?
If you mean why they weren't full "Soviet republics", it's because there was no particular need for that. "Soviet republics" were essentially proclaimed for two reasons:
1. It was impossible to not allow at least some kind of real autonomy at least on paper since Russians met resistance there during the Civil War (Ukraine, Caucasus).
2. As convenient buffer zones (Belarus, Far Eastern Republic).

why?

karelia nearly became independent/part of finland in the numerous heimosodat, but long story short got beat in war

Yep. Japan also occupied the entirety of Sakhalian for a number of years after the intervention.

there's something about balkanization and establishment of nation states that gives me a warm feeling

I'm particular when it comes to that. I love it when ethnostates get established when a large country implodes (Russia, Austria-Hungary), but usually hate it when territories get ceded to existing countries and colonies get disestablished (Germany, Italy).

>hate it when territories get ceded to existing countries
I dunno, sometimes I find that it cool
like if it's a small country I am fond of gets a little more land it makes me a little excited
for example, perhaps the country just got another lake? maybe a strategic something or other?
maybe I'm just autistic

>what is oil
>what is no agricultural production

>giving a shit about wheat when you have hydrocarbons

Sounds like you're just a salty Russian mad because those resources aren't benefiting the Russian state.

BECAUSE FUCKING BORDER GORE, LIKE CHRIST.

The Soviets agreed to divide the country purely on the present republican lines. That's why Russia didn't get the Russian parts of Ukraine, (all of Belarus really), and the Baltic, Kazakhstan, etc. It's why Armenia and Azerbaijan were still at war, no territorial peace. If these shitty literately who autonomous areas became independent it would have instantly been a civil war.

>like if it's a small country I am fond of gets a little more land it makes me a little excited
I know what you mean. Romania went from looking like some ugly Pac-Man to a satisfying circle.

Because that's how the USSR was organized

>Why didn't these regions become independent states?
Because these regions are very sparsely populated, have little to no identity of their own and most importantly seceding makes no sense whatsoever.