Is UA's goal still to take Crimea? If so they must start doing work to manage expectations, "we tried to take Crimea, so we ended up loosing 20% of UA"
Ukraine didn't try to "take" anything. If Putin hadn't invaded Ukraine in February, likely eventually some sort of solution could have been reached that did not involve Crimea going back to Ukraine. But now that's less likely as it was proven quite comprehensively that any kind of territorial (or any other kind really) compromise with Putin is impossible. Just like Finland/Sweden staying neutral is no longer an option, great geopolitical victory.
I just stated my personal opinion if Z stays in power and continues to hold Odessa I will fully admit that it won't be a full win for RU. See you can do these things when you're not just pushing propaganda, and always forced to claim that whatever happens is actually somehow good for your side. Putin's claimed goals of denazification and demilitarization are pretty amorphous so don't really see a point in changing them.
Meanwhile in the real world, Ukraine is more militarized than it was in February, and nazis are fighting on Russian side. Another goal of "special operation"... achieved?
I guess it won't "become RU" just as Donetsk and Crimea didn't became RU, doubt people living there care much about semantics.
People who can remember and compare Mariupol before and after "RU" came to town - they might care.
Did a quick search on UA leaders in USSR and came up with the following:
Stalin was from Georgia, doesn't mean Georgia wasn't/isn't oppressed, attacked, or otherwise negatively affected by Russia. I'm sure there were soviet leaders on many levels from many nations that suffered from the soviet regime. This proves nothing and surely doesn't mean that those nations now would want Russia to impose another regime on them, whether they call it soviet, "novorussia", or whatever.
730 million people in Ukraine... that explains why Putin's invasion is failing. How did he miscalculate so badly.