If we are analyzing this from a realistic perspective I can only agree with a few of the points made.
As you said the final compromise might be Russia annexes most of Eastern Ukraine creating a land bridge to the Crimea and Western Ukraine becomes a free country to apply to join the EU and NATO. Unfortunately I think a lot of fighting ending in a costly stalemate would have to happen first.
It seems to me the war is just as likely or more a failure of idealistic Russian failed diplomacy as any other actor. WTF did Russia think was going to happen when it invaded? Ukraine would roll over without a fight and everyone would accept Russian aggression again? That doesn't seem realistic at all and events have bourne that out.
Are they really winning? It is hard to define but they definitely are not compared to their initial goals. Their push to take Kyiv humiliatingly failed. They have taken territory in the east and south but have taken losses. They have not established air superiority 3 months in. They lost their Black Sea flagship. Ukrainians have somehow managed to strike targets in Russia proper. Lots of aid is flowing into Ukraine even if foreign troops are not fighting directly. Doesn't seem like winning but they can bring in more and more troops and push the front westward I guess but at what cost?
Is it even worth it if they are winning? The Ukrainians will hate them forever. Europe will cut most of its ties and Russia will become a pariah state in many areas of the world. There will likely be a brain drain of young Russians if they can get out. They have lost their biggest markets. Their armed forces have taken huge losses and will continue to take losses. NATO will at least expand to Sweden and Finland even if Ukraine can't join. Current NATO states will increase their military budgets, military readiness, and resolve. Any hawks in NATO will have plenty of ammunition in any debate on what stance to take vis a vis Russia. If any NATO state sends forces the situation on the ground gets worse for Russia and they could potentially be annihilated (along with the rest of us). From a realistic analysis not invading Ukraine seems like the better choice.
I don't think economic "survival" is really an issue. The economies of the NATO states are at least 10X that of Russia and contain lots of energy resources. Of course there will be disruption especially for Germany but there is no question NATO countries will survive. Russia on the other hand will also survive but there seems to me to be a much more realistic chance of lasting damage by being cut off from the West. Do they want to/can they ally with China in a rival bloc to minimize the damage? Will the gains from whatever territory they gain in Ukraine equal the economic and political damage? Realistically I can't see it.
The question of "provoking" seems an emotional issue rather than a realistic one. I put the blame for the war 100% on Russia and Putin but that doesn't count for much on the battlefield or in the economic stuggle of might is right. I think Russia bit off a bit more than it can chew if I am looking at it from a realistic perspective.
