My immediate response: "thanks, Russia! You stupid, stupid government!"
*takes a deep breath*
I think it's easy to overvalue the threat that a belligerent Russia poses. It's economy is roughly a tenth the size of the United States' and is highly reliant on continuing high commodity prices for gas and oil, the population is shrinking by an unprecedented 800,000 a year and it's infrastructure is unwieldy and frequently plagued by systematic corruption. Diplomatically, Russia is also fairly isolated, as it still isn't a full member of many of the most important international clubs, and for a while now there has been a quiet cooling of relation betwixt it and China. Indeed, before the whole Georgian squabble it had been repeatedly praising "European civilisation" and proudly declaring itself a part of a "wider Europe", whilst quietly dropping previous statements of solidarity with Asia.
Of course, Russia can still be a piece of horse radish that smothers an otherwise delightful meal of peppercorn steak. It still has a powerful military and the largest number of nuclear weapons held by any country, is the largest exporter of fossil fuels to the EU and retains significant clout and influence on the world stage, particularly over the former soviet states it publicly considers it's "near abroad". However, the facts simply are that any prospect of a renewed Cold War is incredibly remote. (For one thing, significantly increased hostilities between Russia and the EU would almost certainly lead to drastically reduced fuel exports from one to the other, crippling Russia's economy)
Overall, I'd agree with you that Russia's actions of late have been rather stupid. (Or as silver-age Batman would have it, a pronounced boner) Whilst it has proven a short-term propaganda boost and no doubt soothed a few bruised egos, the only longstanding after-effects on a geo-political scale seem to be the taking up of a harder and more unified line against it by the US and the EU (which especially needs a more unified message), to contribute to the rising tensions between it and potential allies in Asia Minor, and to further encourage Eastern European countries, such as Ukraine, to further enmesh themselves with the West for fear of being the next to be pounced upon. (I doubt it's a coincidence that, after months of haggling, Poland formally consented to the placement of a missile-defence system only hours after the conflict broke out) Georgia has lapsed back into a "frozen conflict", albeit one with slightly different borders.
However, obviously a lot depends upon the actions and reaction of the US and EU, and to a (much) lesser extent the UN, in the coming weeks and months. So far there have been stern words exchanged, but I'd say that they have been too muted and disparate to be truly effective. I think that there needs to be an overarching diplomatic message, in both words and deeds, that, whilst acknowledging that working with Russia is both essential and the lesser evil in some cases (such as the Middle East peace process), unambiguously states that intimidating and occupying independent and democratic states is simply unacceptable, and will be resisted in whatever and whichever means are available. This applies not only intra-nationally, but internationally as well; the more that Russia acts aggressively and considers armed intervention as a valid and preferred course of action to achieving it's foreign policy aims, then, where possible, the more scrutiny it should come under on diplomatic and economic matters. For as long as the Russian government mutters about a new Cold War and unilaterally withdraws from peace treaties, then any future trading agreements between it and Western countries must be examined particularly closely and only entered into after great deliberation. For as long as Russia arbitrarily redraws neighbouring borders, then efforts should be made to restrict it from uninhibited engagement with influential diplomatic bodies, such as the WTO.
This inverse of all this, however, must also hold true. The more that Russia is prepared to exercise restraint in it's dealings, to wholeheartedly work through peaceful channels and to generally respect the sovereignity of other nations, then the more concessions and freedoms the US and the EU must be prepared to offer. To put it simply, the more that Russia acts as a responsible member of the international community, then the greater the efforts of the international community (spearheaded by the US and the EU) must be to acknowledge and reflect this, and to further encourage Russia in this direction. After all, a good steak needs both mashed potatoes and mushrooms to truly tingle one's tastebuds.
(It certainly isn't the case that the US or EU always act as "responsible member(s) of the international community" either, but they do act so on a far more regular and consistent basis then Russia. For example, the refusal of the US to resolve it's longstanding trade disputes with Canada is deplorable, but it has yet to threaten a nuclear strike against Canada unless it shuts up)
(As for North Korea; yeah, they're utterly crazy.
I'm hardly surprised by such threats though, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were to actually restart restarting. The eventual agreement reached between them and the "Big Six" [US, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and the UN] to decommission reactors for aid has a couple of serious structural flaws that could encourage such behaviour, and in any case the hermit kingdom seems to delight in acting in an unpredictable fashion)
What is the difference between Russian recognition of South Ossetia and US recognition of Kosovo?
Very briefly, I'd say it's that an independent Kosovo was the end result of a gradual, diplomatic and (mostly) peaceful process, under the full oversight of the UN. There's also the fact that Kosovo was established as an independent state, South Ossetia is already essentially part of the Russian Federation.
For starters, we all decided to condemn Russia flat out, despite the fact that Georgia started this whole mess.
I'd definitely agree that Georgia's role in all this has been somewhat minimised by the media. I suppose the 'plucky minnow' versus 'bloodthirsty giant' was too profitable a narrative to throw off, but it also helped that Georgia's President, despite his manifest flaws, has proved surprisingly adept at handling the press. However, it is the case that Russia had been previously preparing and expecting to take full advantage of any such situation. (For example, the Russian passports held by a number of the South Ossetian population, claimed as part of the rationale behind the subsequent invasion, had only been granted several weeks beforehand)
On a more basic level, whilst the response of the Georgian government to the shootings in South Ossetia and Abkhazia was condemnable and needlessly bloody, it most certainly did not, in my opinion, justify the subsequent invasion, occupation and annexation by Russian forces.
