British Airways found the aircraft profitable to operate for them. Virgin Airways wanted to buy the Concorde as well at one point but were not allowed to. The aircraft ceased to operate because Airbus stopped giving support to it. And that is despite it being a several decades old design by the time it was retired and the sonic boom issues which prevented it from operating over continental flights. Imagine if it had enough range to do Pacific flights and didn't have the sonic boom issues and could fly overland as well. Add express boarding to whoever used the flights and I suspect it would have been quite successful. Who cares if you have little space in the aircraft if the flight takes half as long.
I have serious doubts about the claim that the Concorde was truly profitable for British Airways. British Airways wasn't paying a realistic price for the support of the type, Airbus clearly was and was fed up paying for it. I also doubt the profitability would cover the acquisition of the aircraft at realistic market prices in the first place. Keep in mind that British Airways only paid a symbolic pound for the fleet. Had the actual development costs been divided out on each delivered frame, you are looking at nearly a billion USD per aircraft that would have to be covered out of the "profit" BA made on it.
As for a hypothetical Russian SSJ, it sort of changes the market dynamics completely when it isn't a project run on free market dynamics. We are entering a new cold war, and the Russian government can justify such a project without considering the pure civilian market. SSJ technology can be shared with future bomber and fighter projects, sharing the cost and increasing the production volume of components. It can also be peddled off to various military branches and state owned airlines.