Sorry, late to the discussion.
And no, I don't see how your interpretation makes any sense.
Brit vessel violates waters, gets no response from the Russians.
Next step: every vessel from every not-Russia aligned country violates waters.
Should Russia send a message by aggressively responding to 1 vessel, or should it then have to deal with sending a million messages to a million vessels instead? Beginner classes in economics tell me option 1 is cheaper long-term both politically and resource-wise.
Ultimate outcome on British yellow papers for both scenarios would be:
A) Russia responded aggressively: its grip is weak.
B) Russia didn't respond: its grip is weak.
Russia knows the west views Crimea as a "contested" land, despite the west's screaming that it only views it as "Ukrainian" land. Therefore, Russia asserts its version of the geopolitical map when need-be.
This "Oh Russia went pew-pew therefore its grip is weak" clownery gives me the giggles.
What's far more hilarious is NATO scrambling jets and ships when Russian vessels pass through the English channel. As though its passthrough would somehow politically question or militarily contest the sovereignty over British or French territory.
