Nattering Nabob of Negativism(c) Spiro AgnewI’d call SS “negativist”:
Thanks for explanation.But they were causing huge problems and could be considered a good ROI. In this case I’m talking about the OTL proponents had been basing their argument on two main considerations:
1. Experience of 1877-78 demonstrated that the reasonably modern Britain-built Ottoman battleships proved to be pretty much useless while the small Russian mine boats were quite effective in creating problems for the Ottomans.
2. Nobody in the right senses expected that Russia is going to win a naval war against Britain because Russian strength was on the land and the naval communications were pretty much irrelevant (at that time). The purpose was to make the whole exercise as painful for the opponent as possible and within this framework the raiders (submarines were not, yet, practical) were good ROI.
I'm add that's from strategic viewpoint interests of Japan and Russian Empire in Far East are relatively close - borh countries don't want really strong China and borh countries don't like perspective of British or American naval supremacy in Pacific Ocean. That's why anglo-american romance with Japan broke after 1905 and why was russo-japanese rappcohment, crowned by treaty of 1916 , possible.Agreement with Japan was a distinct possibility.