There is little reason to invest in more power projection when more and more of the navy has to be replaced.
Mistrals are useful, but hardly needed in the current time.
Just its command capabilities alone would make it the valuable core of a carrier force... the fact that it can also be used for humanitarian and disaster relief roles is just a bonus... and it is not just for foreign countries... Kamchatka is on the Pacific Ring of fire...
They need to decide what they want of their navy... a coastal self defence force to protect their ports, or a projection force that can operate world wide.
The numbers of vessels they had during Soviet times would be excessive and just a waste now or in the near future... a 25K ton helicopter carrier would be rather more value in a landing than any number of frigates with single helos on their rear deck... it would be an enormous force multiplier... and would make the Baltic States sht their pants as an added bonus. Even just the potential to land Russian Naval infantry behind NATO front lines is worth every penny spent to remind countries like Norway and Sweden that having the Ukraine in NATO in no way makes them safer.
However the world is a very large place and with only two vessels it might take a while to get them to the right place, unlike the US who seems to have 'flat-tops' all over the world.
Basing them in the Pacific should allow reasonable access to half the world... especially with the Pacific ring of fire being a volatile place... a Russian Mistral with nuclear propulsion should be able to get to anywhere in reasonably good time anyway.
Given the very defensive strategic stance of Russia and the offensive nature of the military function of the Mistrals, it does seem a crazy amount of money to tie up in what might be humanitarian assets. I can't see anything that says that Russia wants to be a global power, China yes.
I don't expect them to start bombing and invading countries the way the west seems to believe it has the right to, but a powerful navy leads to substantial international power... not the other way around... Britain was never a wonderful land power... it was her navy that made her powerful and the same could be said of the US.
Besides which, as we found with the Atlantic Conveyor (although not a 'flat-top') which went down with many helicopters in the South Atlantic, losing one to an ASM can leave a big asset gap and they are very vulnerable.
I am sure you will agree however that a Russian built Mistral type design will be rather better protected from enemy air power and anti ship missiles than British ships have ever been.
Just look at the distribution of air defence systems on Russian vessels... with new vessels sporting naval versions of Pantsir, TOR, BUK, and S-400....
I mean... if we use history as a guide why bother with frigates when a missile corvette tied up at a pier can destroy an enemy frigate?
One of the driving forces for buying Mistrals was the surprise Georgian attack on South Ossetia... the Russian Navy had a good look at itself and its situation and realised that if Japan had been the protagonist that there would be little chance of Russia mobilising to defend the Kurile Islands... and experience showed they could not rely on the international community or the US or West to condemn such an aggressive action.
The Mistral was chosen because it is a capable vessel and was proven in terms of sea keeping and performance and most importantly it should have already been entering service... by the end of this year they should have had both in service and fitting out... likely fully operational by next year or so.
Because of political BS however that seems like it will not happen, and while efforts have been made to bolster the Pacific Fleet there is still lots of work to be done.