Inviting Danger: When Rules of Engagement(ROE) or complacency puts our sailors at risk

This article from the Associated Press, if reported accurately, is an example of how top-down policies are putting our sailors in mortal danger. 
"In the first public account of the incident, the official said the Russian Fencer flew within 1,000 yards of the USS Donald Cook, a Navy destroyer, at about 500 feet above sea level. Ship commanders considered the actions provocative and inconsistent with international agreements, prompting the ship to issue several radio queries and warnings."  Given the range of the aircraft to ship, there is absolutely nothing this ship CO could do at that point if the actions of the Russian pilot went from provocative to active. 
Next we have this beauty, "the fighter appeared to be unarmed and never was in danger of coming in contact with the ship, said the official, who was not authorized to talk publicly by name about the encounter so spoke on condition of anonymity. The passes, which occurred in the early evening there, ended without incident."  Are we really concerned that the aircraft was there to run into the ship?  Come on, this isn't a Japanese Zero on a kamikaze run, this is an aircraft that can actually deliver ordnance without having to run into a vessel.  Also, I'd love to think our intelligence off of the beach is solid, but who is making the call that this aircraft was unarmed before it was in weapons release range.  Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
Sounds a little too familiar for those familiar with modern Naval history which includes this recap of the USS Stark missile strike courtesy of Wikipedia.  Whether through a restrictive ROE or complacency, allowing this type of aggressive and unwarranted aerial behavior continue is only inviting disaster and leaving our ship and sailors unprepared to react when the enemy believes the rules of the game are ready to be changed.