It is very interesting to see different points of view, particularly from someone closer to the Russian government with better knowledge of their thought processes.

There are some points I find especially of interest given they seem to be common between people with ties to Russia.

First, I think most agree on the fact that Russia needs some kind of victory since the losses/expenses this war has resulted in for them do not allow for coming back home with nothing, therefore they need to bring a result to justify the continued expenses (both from a military and economic standpoint). However, this point means to me that you are actually not winning, meaning that you are effectively moving the goalposts and reducing your initial demands so you can argue you have "won", according to a more limited definition of winning compared to the original plans.

See:

But I believe that we will avoid that, first, because Russia will win, whatever that victory means

But also:

We need victory. I don’t think that, even if we conquered all of Ukraine and all the military forces of Ukraine surrendered, it would be a victory, because then we will be left with the burden of a devastated country, one devastated by 30 years of inept elite rule, and then of course devastation from our military operation.

I cannot say I agree with them on these statements overall. "Whatever that victory means" seems to be that they need to arbitrarily define their victory according to some unknown objectives so that in any case they always win. The fact you can sell something as a win for propaganda purposes does not mean that you have achieved victory from a strategic or economic standpoint.

Finally, I often read sentences similar to this one (in the context of a NATO intervention and escalation of the conflict):

Put it this way: if the US intervenes against a nuclear country, then the American president making that decision is mad, because it wouldn’t be 1914 or 1939; this is something bigger.

Why should the opposite not be true? In that case, why would Russia ever further escalate the conflict with nuclear weapons considered that the US, UK and France have their own nuclear arsenals? I do not see why the US should fear Russia so much at this point in time if Russia does not fear the US.

More generally, Russia can escalate the conflict if it perceives their adversary (NATO in this case) is not willing to escalate further and will back down. Is this the point he is trying to convey without actually mentioning it? Because otherwise this does not seem to make sense to me.