Which is different from e.g. the UK in what way exactly? As recently as 2004, the RN had 12 SSNs in service, currently (and for the foreseeable future) that level is almost halved. And let's not even start discussing late Cold War fleet size (16, plus a dozen or so SSKs).
I guess the difference is that the UK actually retired most of the stuff it could no longer afford to operate and replaced the remainder, while in Russia's case they've kept Soviet-era platforms in large numbers and the production of new platforms has been slow and sporadic. The broader politico-economic context makes it implausible that those old platforms will be replaced at anything approaching a 1:1 ratio. The combined picture is of a declining power clinging to the relics of a bygone era rather than adjusting to reality.
In many ways that picture is unfair or simplistic. Almost all the hardware that remains in Russian service is from the late Soviet period and chronologically not too far out of step with e.g. the US. Most of the refurbished platforms are from 1990-1995, are highly valuable and often unique capabilities, and never saw degradation from service. Additionally, new units ARE coming online, and Russian naval doctrine of limited deployments makes it more plausible to maintain older units in a seaworthy state. All of that is often neglected by habitual critics of Russia.
But in some cases, as with the carrier Kuznetsov, the optics are spot on, and one can only roll one's eyes at the idea that this ship and it's air wing either a) provides anything in the present, or b) serves as a stepping stone to a glorious future of naval aviation. Just let it die already.