What did Russia gain by claiming it fired on a British Type 45?

How should the Russian claim that it had fired on a British Type 45 destroyer be interpreted?

The claim itself offered a domestic propaganda win whether or not events happened as described, while actual fire would have risked a British response.

In a contemporary aside, the Russian statement is treated as an information strategy. Claiming to have fired could rally supporters, portray Russia as defending itself against an imperial vessel, and weaken domestic opposition whether or not the encounter occurred as described. Actual fire would be a different matter because it could invite a military response. The exchange shows why analysts must separate the propaganda value of a claim from the operational consequences of the alleged action.