Putin and Ukraine

The people I've read seem to fall into 2 categories: "I have no idea what he was thinking" and "Here's what he is planning." The latter don't agree with each other all that well.

I admitted a few days ago that I'd no knowledge, which puts me in Socratic-ly good company. Unfortunately, though Socrates was an honored and brave soldier, I suspect he'd not have made a good general--you don't always have the leisure to hash out the truth. So, as an exercise, I'll try to figure things out too. But to try to avoid getting married to a favorite theory, I'll lay down several, and we can see which fits new data better.

Reports are that Russians invaded on many fronts, with relatively small forces, and have attacked mostly military targets--being sure to capture Chernobyl too. Further, reports say the Russians are hitting very stiff resistance and having problems with their timetable.

1. Reports are exaggerated; the Russians are doing OK and expect to be able to dictate terms within a few weeks. With all Ukraine as a satellite/protectorate (no longer "orphan nation") they don't want the expense of rebuilding infrastructure or having to constantly pacify an angry population, so they're being cautious about civilian casualties.
2. The reports are more or less accurate; things are going badly. Putin expected the upper echelons of Ukrainian government to be as corrupt and unpatriotic as his own or ours. He may have even had assurances from us or Turkey that asylum/refuge would be offered. With civil government collapsed, Putin could have offered terms to take only part of Ukraine, and a more friendly government imposed with a fig leaf of independence. He wouldn't want to rile the civilians too much, or the Ukrainian army might not stop fighting easily. He wouldn't have needed overwhelming force for the invasion.
3. The reports are more or less accurate; things are going badly. Putin expected to crush the military quickly and inherit the valuable intact infrastructure and industry. Except either his underlings lied to him about Russian and Ukrainian readiness and capacity, or he didn't ask/listen--and the inadequate forces are in far more trouble than anticipated.
4. There were multiple plans, and the wrong ones started getting implemented. That demanded follow-through, ready or not.
5. "He makes the nations great, then destroys them; He enlarges the nations, then leads them away. He deprives the leaders of the earth’s people of intelligence And makes them wander in a pathless wasteland. They grope in darkness with no light, And He makes them stagger like a drunken person." This seems to fit the USA right now; maybe it fits Russia as well.

I suspect China is scheduled to "broker" a deal that gives away east Ukraine. However, they have their own interests, and might find it convenient to delay and force the Russians to waste more resources.

If (1) is true, we'll see Ukraine controlled in a few weeks, though if the Ukrainians get good at attacking supply lines this might stretch the conflict out at a lower level for years. In (2) or (3), either Putin gets overthrown quickly, or the fight escalates with less capable troops thrown in and lots more infrastructure and civilian damage. In (4) there might be a fall guy available to blame the fiasco on and allow a sort-of face-saving de-facto exit--but that gets harder the longer they wait.

None of these theories looks great for Ukraine, except maybe (5).

Suppose for the sake of argument that Russia and Ukraine were and again ought to be a single country, as Putin alleges. That's very idealistic of him--I trust he would not object if it were ruled from Kiev.