[flagged]
That doesn't makes much sense. Also, it hardly fits the definition of a "failed state", the current authoritarian (verging on totalitarian) Russian government has been pretty effective at maintaining political stability and had (and generally still has) very effective control over its people (more so than successful democratic, not that it's really comparable) over the last 20 years.
The same applied to the USSR during most of its history.
Besides manufacturing capability, I think determining whether something is a "failed state" or not, you need to look at other things, focusing more on social details. Is the government truly democratic? Is the law applied more-or-less fairly and equally? Is the press free, and are people able to discuss things without fear?
Aside from manufacturing exports, how is the internal economy - are people able to afford the basics, and things that might be considered luxuries? How's education, how's the ability to travel both internally and externally, how's economic and social mobility?
I don't think container-ship-tonnage is a great metric of whether something is a failed state or not.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/failed-state
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/failed-state
Russia does not appear to qualify as a failed state by the definition published in any of these three sources.