As does the USA and other armament selling states. We don't sell our best materials, and the degree to which we strip it of its best features depends profoundly on the depth of the bonds with our partners or satellite states. US clients, such as Israel, Iraq at various times, Pakistan at various times, Afghanistan at various times, all want the latest and most exciting technologies. Failure to maintain or train them with them has been more of a problem of the Soviet clients or partners, historically.
I do respect Soviet weaponry. It's not as effective per unit as the best American tools, but it tends to be more robust, cheaper, and easier for undertrained personnel to maintain.
The aircraft and weaponry in the Middle East former Soviet clients were clearly not just to "scare their own population". The Egyptian and Syrian arsenals of the six day war were there partly to protect them NATO, from each other, and from their despised political bogeyman, Israel. Sadam Hussein in Iraq accumulated an effective military by pointing to aggressive outside nations, such as Iran, the Soviets, and later the US. Arms trades with such leaders and nations are dangerous: the technologies sold for "national defense" do get turned against other partner nations, such as Iraq invading Kuwait, and against civilian populations, and against nations whom we'd like to de-escalate and reduce danger throughout the region. But internal security is hardly the only reason for buying advanced weaponry: National conquest is stiill an ongoing practice: Afghanistan, as an example, was conquered by _both_ the Soviets and the USA in the last 50 years, and their oldest leaders remember well how they survived the Soviet control.