Because I can't see any.
Seems to me like the Russian govt are now in a situation where they have no choice but to see this thing through just to try and save face.
The past 10-20 years have been a tragedy for the relationship between Russia and Europe, and a failure from Putin to take advantage of the goodwill that existed after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Many European countries actually wanted a close relationship with Russia, as they (naively) thought that it was moving in a democratic direction. Lots of companies started offices in Russia and countries like Germany trusted Russia enough to supply them with gas. They will probably not do that again unless they have alternative suppliers.
There were of course some negative rhetorics from old school politicians, and Europe were still close allies with US. But the general hope was that Russia was moving closer to Europe and that in time they could perhaps even join the EU to create a new political and economical power.
Unfortunately Putin decided to go in the opposite direction and trying to rebuild the old empire. Oligarks made it difficult to do business and the political rhetorics made "the west" into an enemy.
The only way I see Russia coming out of this stronger, is if the pressure from the people is high enough to let a real democratic election vote in a new leadership that can reduce corruption. This could start repairing foreign relations which would improve the economic situation. Maybe we could get back to the optimism we had 15-20 years ago.
This is probably not likely to happen in the short term.
The only "upside" of this war is that due to the dependency on gas from Russia, Europe will accelerate the process of switching to greener energy. Windmills, solar power and maybe even nuclear power plants. This may be remembered in history as the turning point in the reduction of global warning, that came with a high human cost.
If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost.
And in a nuclear war, nobody wins. So stronger could only be used in relative terms.
On the other side, I don't know who would intervene. The risk of further escalation might lead to the acceptance of nuclear genocide limited to Ukraine. And Ukrainian capitulation would be swift if Russia demonstrated they were willing to attack the population with nuclear bombs. The whole scenario is difficult to imagine. The last time civilians got nuked is 77 years ago. And the Japanese people had nobody who could have retaliated for them.
Even that is doubtful. They have lost tens of thousands of their best troops, tons of expensive equipment, and destroyed their economy short (sanctions and blackmail) and long term (nobody would trust them again as a reliable supplier, so their exports of raw materials economy will suffer).
Losing troops and military equipment is insignificant in the long term. Both have to be replaced regularly anyway. That is no loss unless one counts the pollution and the humanitarian cost. And we know the Russian government doesn't consider those costs.
From my point of view, if they could pull it off, the Russian Federation would be stronger having annexed Ukraine. Not that I want to see that scenario, or think it likely.
I doubt that. The sanctions from 2014 have remained in place even during the "quiet" years.
Keeping up the facade of this being a „special military operation“ left alive the excuse of „we are not really trying all that hard to win this“ whereas (partial) mobilization more signlas towards „this is going south lets do whatever works to end this“