As far as I know, and have read, Russia was never really about projecting force. Adm. Kuznetsov is for war, like most of their fleet. Sadly, Kuznetsov is so old, and in such a state of disrepair, it doesn't even do that very well. Remember, in Syria, Kuznetsov was there but it was only for Russian television. It launched a few missions, but inevitably had to be dragged home where it has been in repair since. I could be wrong by my take is that Russians have long relied on perimeter defense in the form of missiles, which is why they have the absolute scariest of surface to air missile systems in the world. Couple that with their "eye-watering" level of electronic warfare (a US commander said that during the Obama/Killary Ukraine coup) and you have some pretty formidable defenses. And now that they've shown the world they can launch cruise missiles and hit targets hundreds of miles away, you have to come away with the idea that they've adopted a model of efficiency considering their economy. Now, this isn't saying it's fool-proof at all but when you're in dire straits, you have to do what you have to do.

Is Russia a threat in a direct war? Well, not in the US. No one is a direct threat in a US land invasion. In Europe? Hell yes Russia is a threat. The zerg by itself is still a valid tactic. Russia started the push-back of ISIS in Syria once their foot was in the door. They didn't play by the same rules Obama tied the US hands with (the globalists wanted Syria as their latest acquisition which is why we let ISIS spread, and in many cases, allowed their funding as well as trained them...well, we trained "rebels" who then turned their money and weapons over to ISIS).

And that's just in a direct war. This doesn't take into account their covert and long-term stuff. I mean, look how many kids like the idea of socialism today. Look at Reddit. People out-right calling for violence against people with whom they disagree.

edit: Oh and we also can't dismiss their submarine force