Français vs Русский

I'm aware of that. However, the total number of native French speakers is only 74 million according to the Nationalencyklopedin 2007 estimate. A 2014 estimate places it at approx. 80 million. The total number of French speakers is approx. 274 million, though. The Wikipedia article is accurate, though I can see how one might misinterpret the data.

But considering all the places where you can use Russian (the giant area indicated in the picture below), it might be objectively the more useful choice.

TL;DR – To put it simply, the problem with this statement is that you are using Russia's size and the number of countries in which there are many Russian speakers as evidence that the Russian language is "objectively more useful" than French. You also fail to describe why Russian would be more useful, only that it would be based on those premises. For a more detailed explanation, see below.

This statement implies that:

1. the size in land area of the native country is related to the utility of learning a particular language;
2. the quantity of locations, especially with respect to the number of countries, wherein a particular language is common is related to the utility of said language; and,
3. the previous two points indicate that Russian is "objectively more useful", despite the fact that:
   • A. utility can be both objective and subjective; and,
   • B. objective utility is dependent upon the particular circumstance; thus,
   • • B1. even the objective utility of a particular object (or concept) cannot be absolutely determined; and,
   • C. the utility of a language to a person is both objective and subjective; therefore,
   • • C1. the objective utility of the language may not accurately reflect the value of the language to a particular individual.

(I would structure that better, but unfortunately SteamGifts' formatting only permits first-degree subordination of ordered lists.)

Basically, the issue with your above statement is that it implies premises (1) and (2), which concludes with point (3). The problem is that point (3)—your conclusion that Russian is objectively more useful because of the size of Russian and all the places wherein people speak Russian—is flawed, as I point out in (A), (B), and (C).

In (3A), I point out that utility can be both objective and subjective. The import of this will become apparent later on, but essentially you're omitting half (or more) of the utility of the language. In (3B), I point out that the objective utility of anything depends on the particular circumstance; and this is important to note because, like I stated in (3B1), this means that your general statement that Russian is objectively more useful doesn't mean much unless we know the circumstance. For example, what is the objective utility of a hammer when you're trying to acquire water? There is no initial relationship, and unless we have more information or a particular circumstance for why it might be useful to have a hammer to acquire water (such as breaking open a container of it). Likewise with this: the Russian language can be objectively more useful only in particular circumstances, such as if one is going to live or remain in Russia for an extended period of time. Overall, however, the Russian language has indefinite utility. The circumstance is what gives anything utility or value, and without it the object (or subject) possesses no utility. Utility is not an intrinsic quality, nor does it possess any intrinsic value; it only manifests when there is a causal relationship.

In (3C), I point out that the utility of any language is both objective—as in it satisfies certain demands and resolves certain problems regardless of the agent—and subjective—as in it satisfies particular demands or desires and resolves particular problems unique or specific to the agent. By only representing the objective utility and value of a language, you are not providing the full picture—this is the point of (3C1). The subjective utility and value, or the utility and value that is important to the particular person (in this case, the OP), is also important and in some circumstances may even outweigh the objective utility of the object or concept, depending on how meaningful or valuable it is to the subject.

I hope that makes sense.

I admit that these are only my opinions and although they are supported by evidence, I understand that I may be wrong in certain areas, especially with respect to my interpretation of each language's value. I'm no linguist, nor am I sufficiently erudite in the required fields to provide a comprehensively informed opinion. For those reasons, among others, I strongly recommend you do some research yourself, if only to confirm my statements.

If I'm wrong at any point, feel free to point it out.

??? You don't like to speak with your friends and that is why now started to read only french literature? don't get you hmm