It was in reference to that, in the context of the larger body of text that has been written about intelligence services. Even when the CIA is the subject, I don't think I've ever seen them presented as America's version of [other country's intelligence service] (especially not the bad guys). But the other direction has been so common over the years that it's begun to stand out when I see it.
Like I said, to an English-speaking (arguably American, as Bloomberg is based in Manhattan) audience, it makes little sense to phrase it the other way. You compare the unknown with the known, not the other way around.
Compare:
"Pachinko, the Japanese version of a slot machine."
"A slot machine, the American version of pachinko."
Which version is intended for an American audience? Which for an audience familiar with Japan? There's nothing nefarious here.
If that stands out to you, I think you may be looking too hard for bias to the point where you're seeing things that aren't there. Keeping an eye out for bias is a good thing. It can be sometimes difficult to keep it calibrated.
The phrasing is not a sign of bias specifically. It's just a peculiarity that I've seen in this style of journalism going back to the Cold War era when "KGB" was a household word.
Maybe I've binged too much on 1970s and 1980s news with the benefit of hindsight, and it's coloring what I expect my perception of today's fluff pieces to be if I read them again in 30 years.
I think it's just because the SVR is not a household brand in the same way that the CIA is and the KGB was (you never saw the KGB described that way either).
The CIA, KGB and MI5 are Hollywood staples; the SVR isn't, yet.
(In a similar way GCHQ is often described as "the UK's counterpart to the NSA" or words to that effect).
