No, it's just routine (and useful) reporting on the everday business of spycraft.
It's funny how they always say the KGB/SVR is the counterpart to the the CIA but never describe the CIA as the counterpart to the KGB/SVR.
It's called an "analogy", and it's a pretty useful tool of expression. Particularly for describing "Y, the counterpart of X" where X is a large agency in the (very large) country you live in.
So really, I just don't get the "scare" component you're driving at.
Is this a reference to "the SVR, Moscow’s version of the CIA"? Don't you usually use the construction "X is the counterpart to Y" when Y is the more familiar to the intended audience? I don't see anything sinister here, at least in this grammar construction.
Compare:
"Pachinko, the Japanese version of a slot machine."
"A slot machine, the American version of pachinko."
Which version is intended for an American audience? Which for an audience familiar with Japan? There's nothing nefarious here.
If that stands out to you, I think you may be looking too hard for bias to the point where you're seeing things that aren't there. Keeping an eye out for bias is a good thing. It can be sometimes difficult to keep it calibrated.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic. I'm done.
Maybe I've binged too much on 1970s and 1980s news with the benefit of hindsight, and it's coloring what I expect my perception of today's fluff pieces to be if I read them again in 30 years.
The CIA, KGB and MI5 are Hollywood staples; the SVR isn't, yet.
(In a similar way GCHQ is often described as "the UK's counterpart to the NSA" or words to that effect).