General Discussion

Russia has invaded some areas, but the sense in which it can be said to truly occupy them is very limited and fragile.

That's just one of my quibbles with the OP - Russia's area gains over the last couple of years have been tiny in the grand scheme of a country the size of Ukraine, and have been incredibly costly in personnel and any other terms. Many of the "captured" areas are in ruins. Those that aren't have a very uneasy coexistence between the occupying forces and the inhabitants, no matter whether those inhabitants may have initially been open to the idea of becoming Russian citizens.

Russia just doesn't have any of the resources required to subjugate the whole of Ukraine. Its initial plan relied on rubbish intelligence that suggested many Ukrainians would capitulate and allow themselves to be enlisted to the Russian cause. That didn't happen, in the same way the Russians' celebratory meals booked in Kyiv's best restaurants never happened. Any very faint prospects of that support emerging were scuppered by atrocities such as those suffered in Bucha.

As for the rest of it, it's not up to date and is evidently filtered through blinkers the OP has never realized he wears.

I think European militarization is inevitable. What tensions that will lead to is anybody's guess, but the alternatives are not appetizing.

None of this will be helped by Trump's (and now Kellogg's - who I had some faint hopes for in view of his statements before he was appointed special envoy) overwhelming sense of urgency to get this "done". He wants to tick off an "achievement" come what may -"Mission Accomplished" - and bargains on his fans not having enough attention span or interest to follow the horrible consequences as they unfold half a world away. Meanwhile, time is not Putin's friend given the problems the war has caused Russia internally, so Trump's team look like the cavalry rushing headlong to his rescue.