Eh, that is normal for guided missiles. From what I remember, US missiles didn't perform any better.
Maybe the reliability rate could be excused,
somewhat. Very few weapons systems of that range and complexity have been in service as long, or have gone through as many iterations, as the Tomahawk missile. And even they have an occasional failure in flight.
The accuracy issues are inexcusable, however. If you recall the day 1 Iskander strikes that missed their aimpoints at that airfield, they all looked like they were off by the same margin, and in the same direction. In other words someone didn't punch in the coordinates right. Compare to this article about the "very precise miss" the Indian Air Force had
in their strike on Balakot. Advanced weapon systems are not just "plug-and-play," they require trained professionals to program and use and even those people can make mistakes. Now consider what RUSI pointed out two months ago once the persistent absence of the Russian Air Force in any significant strategic strike role began to raise eyebrows - the best explanation is that the
Russians simply don't have the operational-level staffing required to really plan big air operations. Strike planning and all that takes
work. Though we're all loath to admit it, staff officers actually
do have useful jobs that need doing. If Russia doesn't have enough operations staff - and given the absolute clusterfuck they've made of everything else, that seems to be likely - they're going to suffer misses not from
technical flaws in their weapons, but from insufficient strike planning.