I think you may have misunderstood me - the section you mention includes info about BTGs etc. as you say, however I was looking for information on the fielding and doctrine behind Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons, ie tactical/theatre nuclear weapons. There is a little in the below section:
But that is basically it from what I can tell apart from the mention on pg 31.
Since I'm already skimming and criticising, I have another couple of thoughts. Who is this document aimed at?
Ok, fine, so non-military personell? Politicians/civil servants who don't have a military backround but would make better decisions with a bit more?
The section I quoted above, apart from the new look program, a couple of other interesting things
And then in another section:
Wait but they are moving some back to divisions? Is that indecision or budget or what?
What? Well anyway, I read there is a mix of volunteers and contracted soldiers? And it affects things to the extent that you want to separate them when trying to form a BTG?
Ok great that looks like something interesting to read about - how much of the army is volunteers and how do they stack up to their "contracted" comrades?
Again, I haven't read the whole document, but from my skimming (which may be all a civil servant may have time for) I would venture:
The target audience seems unclear. There is a "New Look Motorized Rifle Brigade" TOE at one point, and every so often there are lists of the number of personel or tanks in this or that, or the aforementioned MiG29 is most capable table, which all seem pretty pointless without context, especially to someone who has not been to officer school.
Several interesting narrative threads which look like they could have been followed to provide some insight aren't followed, and information that is mentioned tends to be scattered around the document.
I never read SMP to my knowledge but I assume it was not like this. It feels as though what we needed was a book written by David M. Glantz, giving us a little history, a little 90s collapse and consequence, a little new look reform, a little differences in doctrine, a little dont assume they wont do this or that or use this or that - this is how they see this... etc. You know, what actually military analysts worry about. And then a lot of nice colour maps to show where things are and how big this or that is and what a division is supposed to do.
To reiterate, I haven't read much of the document, just commenting on what I have in the mean-time. Apologies if I have over-stated a position on too little information, but I wanted to put the conjecture out there.