Whenever I play EUIV or CK2, I swear to God, I'll be playing some piss-ant country and it'll be 1700 and I'll see the whole world and go, "WTH? WTF happened to X?" And my GF will respond, "Did you break the game again?" I'll say, "I didn't do it! That's not my fault. I'm playing as Kamchatka!" and she'll respond, "Babe, you always break the game."
Joking aside, Russia being annihilated, as I've mentioned in other threads, is a perfectly reasonable and plausible scenario. Russia's continued existence is predicated on two things: the continued fractious and undeveloped nature of the Steppe Hordes, and Sweden & Commonwealth's attention on the HRE. I have a Russia in my game right now, but it's continually hampered because it's allied with Austria. The two of them squabble continuously with a PLC, Sweden, and Great Britain (who are all allied). It's even more hampered by the fact I'm playing as Japan and have been allied with and pumping up Oirat for the last 150 years (and we've been taking bites out of Ming, so we're getting stronger).
Honestly, the worst part about this whole scenario is that it's Russia dragging Austria down. A succession of "Militarist" Tsars keep starting wars with PLC and Sweden, which drags in GB, which they keep losing. So Austria never expands because it's too busy covering Russia's ass, so they never actually present a credible threat to PLC and Sweden.
I've seen this a few times now. Sometimes Russia succeeds and sometimes it doesn't. The reason it gets slaughtered is not because "super stronk Sweden and PLC", it's because Sweden and PLC's attention isn't focused on HRE (and, for PLC's case, Ottomans). Historically, if PLC and Sweden had decided to focus going East instead of West, you'd see the actual map of the world looking something like OP's screenshot.