Normally. laws act to give an equitable resolution for a situation. In the case of international law, they act to give a friction on the slope towards aggression. Having terms that are ill defined while problematic give options in a response from an event, but also should give pause to an aggressor with an intent to do harm. Common law definitions may be assumed, but that also may result in an outcome that was undesired by the parties concerned.
it sucks, but it normally acts as a brake to ill conceived actions. Except with Russia, who elect to work in the grey assuming that their intended prey will not respond due to their preferred adherence to a higher moral ground.Russia has routinely plumbed the depths of moral depravity and appears to revel in that state. Without a clear position being stated clearly enough that they can understand the consequences, Russia and to an extent China will continue to test the boundaries of acceptable behavior..
In the various wordings there is the concept of quantity as well as quality when it comes to "testing" for what consitutes "armed attack" as aggressive behavior.
https://www.shs-conferences.org/arti...2019_01022.pdf
In that context the quantitative threshold is certainly being probed
A crazy Ivan response by the collective West might be more effective as a control technique than continued weary patience by nanny.
(as well as, of course, full & direct support of Ukraine)