It absolutely isn't. It takes several years to make a BTR CDR. 2 to make a fighter pilot.
You and others are falling into the Clancy style trap of denigrating Soviet equipment without understanding their doctrine. And you don't understand their doctrine since you don't understand their circumstances.
The Soviets had to defend a country with the longest borders in the world surrounded by enemies. The US....didn't. The Foxbat was meant for the interceptor role. It needs to be able to dash, to be able to fix any mistake in the setup and timing of the intercept, otherwise you miss and the bomber happily flies to its target.
The MiG-25 was designed when the threat to them seemed to be coming from supersonic bombers which greatly reduced earlier aircraft's engagement and engagement envelopes.
I understand their circumstances perfectly well, however the circumstances I focus on is the level of technological development since that drives what doctrine is possible. The Soviets may as well wish for the moon as wish for a more sophisticated Mig25 able to do more amazing shit and then developing doctrine to fit. They're stuck with their relative economic poverty and level of technical development that means that they simply cannot develop advanced multi-role aircraft and take advantage of the doctrinal opportunities that presents, assuming of course that the Soviet political system allows them such freedom of action, which it didn't. That's not to say the Soviets couldn't do stuff and use it effectively, they could and did, but lets not pretend that was because they were all round awesome.
Oh and with pilots NATO considered 180 flight hours per year to be needed to retain a C rating, an A rating required 250, the Soviets in the latter half of the Cold War were doing 70 hours per year. Granted their accounting methods were a bit stricter which maybe gives them another 10-15 hours by NATO standards. A SAM battery commander is a fraction of the cost, easier to recruit and train and keep proficient compared to a fighter pilot.