Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Velasco]

I don't think this conflict ends here so this is going to be more than Donbass so it's incorrect to act like that's all that's happening in 2022. But sanctions are not of material value. This has been proven time and time again in multiple countries.

What's the correct course of action in your view?

[jaichind]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

[Meclazine for Israel]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

Well if what you are saying is true, Putin should just take the whole country.

[Astatine]

In an usual move, the collective leadership of the Left Party in Germany - usually the most pro-Russian party along with the AfD - has denounced the recognition of DNR and LNR as a violation of international law and has called for the removal of all Russian troops from Donbas:

https://twitter.com/DietmarBartsch/status/1495879953879113730

[...]

I doubt that the AfD will follow suit though... they usually attempt to outdo the Left Party, especially in areas where the Left has started to move towards the "mainstream" and left a flank open.

Drinking too much alcohol at a party and vomitting afterwards is what I would frame a "bad choice", but NOT the recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent (in the territory both "republics" proclaim - the whole oblasts respective, of which many parts such as the city of Mariupol are still under Ukrainian control).

Interesting we haven't heard anything of Gregor Gysi (Foreign Policy spokesperson of the parliamentary group), Sevim Dağdelen (spokesperson for disarmament) and Sahra Wagenknecht (enfant terrible) yet, gee, I wonder why.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

Well, Putin should've never gone beyond bringing home Crimea.

[compucomp]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

Honestly if the "freedom and democracy" rhetoric didn't get in the way and realpolitik could be practiced in the open, there is a grand bargain to be struck here where Russia annexes a big chunk of eastern Ukraine, probably up to Kharkov, Dnipropetrovsk, Mariupol and the part of Ukraine that borders Crimea, Ukraine accepts it by treaty, and the rest of Ukraine joins NATO. From the perspective of joining NATO it was a problem for Ukraine anyway that it had "temporarily occupied territories" since then NATO could be on the hook for helping Ukraine reclaim those territories.

[jaichind]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

Well if what you are saying is true, Putin should just take the whole country.

Western Ukraine has
1) Very little if any Russian speakers
2) Influence by Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

This means Ukrainian nationalism is very strong there making long-term Russian control very costly and not viable.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In an usual move, the collective leadership of the Left Party in Germany - usually the most pro-Russian party along with the AfD - has denounced the recognition of DNR and LNR as a violation of international law and has called for the removal of all Russian troops from Donbas:

https://twitter.com/DietmarBartsch/status/1495879953879113730

[...]

I doubt that the AfD will follow suit though... they usually attempt to outdo the Left Party, especially in areas where the Left has started to move towards the "mainstream" and left a flank open.

Drinking too much alcohol at a party and vomitting afterwards is what I would frame a "bad choice", but NOT the recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent (in the territory both "republics" proclaim - the whole oblasts respective, of which many parts such as the city of Mariupol are still under Ukrainian control).

Interesting we haven't heard anything of Gregor Gysi (Foreign Policy spokesperson of the parliamentary group), Sevim Dağdelen (spokesperson for disarmament) and Sahra Wagenknecht (enfant terrible) yet, gee, I wonder why.

Wagenknecht significantly softened the stance of her party's leadership in saying that the recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk violates "contradicts" international law and makes finding a peaceful solution "harder". She then literally uses the term "both sides" ™ © in the second sentence of her tweet.

https://twitter.com/SWagenknecht/status/1496059290427269121

I guess this was the toughest form of "condemnation" of Russia you could have expected from her.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

This is perhaps the worst thing about all of this, is that it puts one more nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation as an actual thing.

It is clear that any state that is capable of making nuclear weapons but does not do so is an idiot-state. Nuclear weapons are the only reliable means of deterrence and self-defense against other nuclear powers.

This will accelerate the spread of nuclear weapons, and sooner or later nukes are going to end up being actually used again in some form or another as a result. It might be some accidental nuclear detonation/launch. It might be a deliberate small or "tactical" use of nukes. It might be nuclear terrorism. Or it might be a larger scale nuclear conflict that could kill hundreds of millions or billions or potentially end civilization. But either way, it is just a matter of time, and that time keeps becoming shorter.

[Dereich]

A surreal questioning with Putin’s press secretary. It’d be a good comedy routine if it wasn’t so serious.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

A surreal questioning with Putin’s press secretary. It’d be a good comedy routine if it wasn’t so serious.

Strategic ambiguity™.

[Velasco]

Interesting we haven't heard anything of Gregor Gysi (Foreign Policy spokesperson of the parliamentary group), Sevim Dağdelen (spokesperson for disarmament) and Sahra Wagenknecht (enfant terrible) yet, gee, I wonder why.

I'd be genuinely interested to know the thoughts of Gregor Gysi, for he is a very interesting character

I have some deja vu sensation reading about Die Linke and Russia (I'm more familiar to Podemos and Venezuela). Anyway Vladimir Putin's brand of nationalism has more supporters among the ranks of Viktor Orban (but not among the ranks of the Polish guys, for some reason)

[Sir Mohamed]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes (literally sane)

[StateBoiler]

I don't think this conflict ends here so this is going to be more than Donbass so it's incorrect to act like that's all that's happening in 2022. But sanctions are not of material value. This has been proven time and time again in multiple countries.

What's the correct course of action in your view?

Well they're not going to be deploy troops inside Ukraine. They've made that perfectly clear.

Sanctions just don't accomplish what the people doing the sanctioning intend them to do. We know this from Iraq, Iran, Middle East en masse, Cuba, Russia, North Korea. If it's to punish the powerful, they'll find a way around in the incredibly opaque global financial system. If it's to punish the weak so they will challenge the powerful to upend the status quo, when has that worked? That Europe and the U.S. have settled on sanctions shows they're powerless to do anything that will directly challenge Russian control of Donbass. The Russians are still on sanctions from 7 years ago.

As far as what I would do, at Ukrainian request deploy NATO ships into the Black Sea close to the Ukrainian coastline and the Crimean peninsula (probably not smart to go into the Sea of Azov). I would put a boot in the ass of the Ukrainian government to get them to finally prepare defensively for an invasion, provide them intelligence and pointers to aid them in their defense (that should be done now). If they can't be bothered, if Ukraine doesn't care about getting invaded, why should the West? That's a very flippant take but defending the country is literally the military's raison d'etre, use them for that purpose.

[StateBoiler]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

This is perhaps the worst thing about all of this, is that it puts one more nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation as an actual thing.

Had a Georgian on another forum say the same thing. Georgia should get its hands on nukes.

[StateBoiler]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.

It didn't just embolden Russia, it emboldened literally every separatist political movement globally and countries like Russia have continuously rubbed the Kosovo logic in the West's face since.

Anyone that tries to make the "Kosovo was not a precedent" argument, I don't respect that person nor anything else they say: everything is a precedent.

[Astatine]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Russia more or less helped Abkhaz separatists to expel and kill thousands of Georgians (47 % of the Abkhaz population in 1989, 21 % in 2003) for instance by refusing to step in when Abkhaz separatists violated a ceasefire agreement (Sokhumi massacre of 1993) in the early 1990s before the Kosovo War even started.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.

It didn't just embolden Russia, it emboldened literally every separatist political movement globally and countries like Russia have continuously rubbed the Kosovo logic in the West's face since.

Anyone that tries to make the "Kosovo was not a precedent" argument, I don't respect that person nor anything else they say: everything is a precedent.

Fair points.
Kosovo is one of the most major own-goals of Western diplomacy over the past two decades, re: Eastern Europe. Its creation was a major factor in creating this crisis more generally.

I'd also add it's easy to adhere to a set of generally understood rules if you feel like you aren't losing very badly. (Basically every?) precedent that the West is using against Russia, it has violated itself at some point. And Russia's been the net loser from all those violations, in the eyes of the Kremlin. What's the point of a set of rules if equals don't have the right to do the same things under said rules?

If Putin isn't interested in playing ball now, it's because he thinks talking with NATO leaders won't solve his problems. He needs to change the reality on the ground. Then NATO can talk to him, with him being in a position of strength. Russia thinks itself at least somewhat equal to NATO countries. Ergo, it can intervene in the same vein as NATO countries. Ukraine lies within its sphere, just as though Mexico (perhaps Canada would be a better example?) lies in the American sphere.

The way we've been engaging with Russia has long undermined the rules-based international order. We didn't realize it much at the time, but it was unwise to act as though the high tide of the 1990s and 2000s, when Russia was weak, was going to be some sustainable status quo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Won't Germany just burn more coal?

No. There's a misconception that this issue is about power generation,* but it's actually more about heating and especially domestic heating. So it would mean importing more gas from elsewhere and, over the long-term, moving towards alternative methods of domestic heating. This would have the effect of shrinking the market for Russian gas in Germany - putting that at risk for the sake of post-imperial adventurism is certainly a choice, but we are where we are.

_{*The nuclear angle is also misunderstood: Germany hasn't spontaneously shut down all its nuclear power stations, it has simply opted not to replace any of its existing ones. All of its nuclear power stations were (are) fairly old, with the newest - the ones still in operation - opening in 1988-9. In practice a lot of other governments have done the same thing, largely on cost grounds.}

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.

It didn't just embolden Russia, it emboldened literally every separatist political movement globally and countries like Russia have continuously rubbed the Kosovo logic in the West's face since.

Anyone that tries to make the "Kosovo was not a precedent" argument, I don't respect that person nor anything else they say: everything is a precedent.

"Annushka has already bought the sunflower oil, and has not only bought it, but has already spilled it."

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Russia more or less helped Abkhaz separatists to expel and kill thousands of Georgians (47 % of the Abkhaz population in 1989, 21 % in 2003) for instance by refusing to step in when Abkhaz separatists violated a ceasefire agreement (Sokhumi massacre of 1993) in the early 1990s before the Kosovo War even started.

Thanks for the new information (and it shouldn't be surprising that Russia was doing divide-and-conquer games in the Caucusus of the 1990s), but it is still fact that Russia was allowed to militarily intervene and recognize Abkhazia in 2008 by using the Kosovo precedent, no?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Won't Germany just burn more coal?

No. There's a misconception that this issue is about power generation,* but it's actually more about heating and especially domestic heating. So it would mean importing more gas from elsewhere and, over the long-term, moving towards alternative methods of domestic heating. This would have the effect of shrinking the market for Russian gas in Germany - putting that at risk for the sake of post-imperial adventurism is certainly a choice, but we are where we are.

Won't it prolong coal burning? Not only in Germany, but, for example, in Poland. I think, it will and already has.

_{*The nuclear angle is also misunderstood: Germany hasn't spontaneously shut down all its nuclear power stations, it has simply opted not to replace any of its existing ones.}

Same results, so what's the difference?

_{All of its nuclear power stations were (are) fairly old, with the newest - the ones still in operation - opening in 1988-9. In practice a lot of other governments have done the same thing, largely on cost grounds.}

Under-investment. If it was about "on cost grounds", you'd never (ok, not never, but it would take at least a decades more) get a cheap wind power plants in first place.

It was imo a purely political choice based on irrational fear muh NuCLeAR!!!!!111 among parts of the population.

[Dereich]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Russia more or less helped Abkhaz separatists to expel and kill thousands of Georgians (47 % of the Abkhaz population in 1989, 21 % in 2003) for instance by refusing to step in when Abkhaz separatists violated a ceasefire agreement (Sokhumi massacre of 1993) in the early 1990s before the Kosovo War even started.

Thanks for the new information (and it shouldn't be surprising that Russia was doing divide-and-conquer games in the Caucusus of the 1990s), but it is still fact that Russia was allowed to militarily intervene and recognize Abkhazia in 2008 by using the Kosovo precedent, no?

Russia was “allowed” to do so because they had the military force and the political will to do so. The only thing the recognition of Kosovo changed was to give Russia a talking point against the West. There is no scenario where not recognizing Kosovo stops or changes the Russo-Georgian War.