If Roscosmos achieves that price target it will likely only be because they are massively subsidized by the Russian government an the price is arrived at by disregarding those subsidies.
There is no evidence to support an assertion that Amur launch prices will be state subsidized to achieve $22M to the customer. In fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary:
--Russian launches are NOT currently state subsidized to any significant degree. Among other things, that's a major reason Russian launch rates have been terrible for the past few years--Putin isn't bailing them out of their crappy reliability by giving Westerners sweetheart deals to come back and get the launch rates back up.
--There's really no history of state subsidized commercial launches. In fact, Proton was at one point famously a massive profit center because of existing hardware from the old ICBM program. When they opened up in the 90's it was almost literally just bolting some western satellite onto a mothballed ICBM and charging $80 or $100M (or whatever it was back then) to do so. And at last check, the US is paying $90M or something to launch an astronaut on a Soyuz that hasn't had significant development investment for decades and, at least in commercial satellite trim, costs ~$50M. For the whole rocket.
--$880M is actually a pretty reasonable amount of funding a program that's that's using some existing components so its not like the claims of reusability can be dismissed as pure fantasy. To elaborate, Amur will use the Fregat upper stage, probably Soyuz evolutions for the second stage and fairings, and the RD-169 main engines which have been in development for at least a few years now.
Please explain how the above list translates into "likely" state subsidies.
To use a relevant hockey analogy, Roscosmos needs to skate towards where the puck is going to be, not where it is right now.
It would be like an EV competitor to Tesla saying “In 6 years we will launch a car like the Model 3 for the price of a Model 3 in 2020, isn’t that great!”.
Please explain the relevance of these analogies to this discussion. Those analogies imply Roscosmos is developing a product that will in many years match that of SpaceX's 2020 product. The information
you linked explicitly states otherwise. The post
you quoted when making those analogies explicitly states otherwise.
I would describe Roscosmos as a dead man walking.
There's no evidence to suggest this is in any way accurate analysis. Roscosmos is the state rocket company. The claim of "dead men walking" is as valid as describing ULA or Mitsubishi or Ariane or ISRO as dead men walking and, whether anyone likes it or not, they're ALL going to be around for a LONG time, because governments want to pay their own people to launch government things. (Mitsubishi is probably the most likely to fold their rocket shop, but I digress)