Here is what I think: Both issues are very complicated and the idea that we can make simplistic judgements and comparisons, ultimately leads to totally wrong conclusions.
Ultimately, geopolitical issues, even on a surface level, are very hard to resolve and attempting to oversimplify such situations leads to laughable statements, especially considering that there are many details in each case and country that we cannot be aware of, unless we live there.
In light of all those things, I believe that it is preferable to be cautious and respectful with our statements, so that we do not diminish the life and death struggle of those people, and that we should avoid the footballisation of geopolitics, where we just pick a side in each dispute and no further explanation/exploration is needed for anything that happens.
At the end of the day, what seems trivial to us, might be a matter of war for other people and we are not really equipped to judge such situations from such distance (literal distance, but also mental - we are not the ones living under threat of destruction - and physical - we are not the ones that will end up in the trenches), especially those situation that not only involve geopolitics, but economics, future prospects and centuries-old past grievances and occurances.
Thank you @Jon_Ko for giving me the opportunity to sum up my opinion and clarify things. 
If you want a direct response to your question (I do not dodge serious inquiries like that), my answer is that I tend to follow my own advice, so since I do not know that, therefore I reserve judgement and thus I currently do not have an opinion I can share/discuss on that particular issue. If that changes in the future, I will participate in said discussions.
Quite so, but countries and governments are not their leaders. We tend to personalise governments by their leaders for simplicity and for newsworthyness, but the fact of the matter is that most “heads of state” have a much shorter leash than we think.
For example, in the aforementioned casus belli against Greece, it was issued by Turkey when Suleiman Demirel was president and Tansu Ciler was prime-minister (you can look them up at your leisure). None of their successors rescinded the casus belli, so noone in Greece has the opinion that “if somehow Erdogan was voted out then…” or “if someone else had won this or that election then this of that might have not happened”.
The truth is that:
a) Noone can guarantee you that things would have been better or some bad things would not have happened and
b) Maybe things would have been worse in the long run (e.g. a weak/mild leader might lose the next elections to a wildly radical one and then “who knows?” … see what is going on in Argentina now, if you want a current example).
There are some events and policies that are “country-based” so to speak. It doesn’t matter who is at the helm, there are some red lines that the geopolitics of a region tend to impose to every side.
We had an example of that with Wagner and its mutiny. For months we were made to believe by the news that Wagner was almost single-handedly holding the front-lines and Prighozin was turned into world-wide military star. If that were true, when they mutinied, the front would have collapsed and the Ukrainians could have easily counter-attacked during those days.
But that didn’t happen.
Which means that the “Wagner was almost single-handedly holding the front-lines” tale was over-blown or, as usual, we are so far away from the situation that we do not have the needed knowledge to understand it.
Inner struggles can play a role, of course, but abandoning an active front-line is a totally different and very rare tale. To my best of knowledge the only people that we insane enough to manage to devolve into so much in-fighting and to conduct a civil war, while fighting an external force, was Greece during 1821-1827.
A really moderate Russia would have come about if we had all worked together for a Russia that would have joined the EU. There were times in recent history where that could have been achieved. That would have been the best result for the planet.
Geopolitics do not have such lofty goals though, so that was mostly seen as a utopic dream.
See? You are enhancing my point above. A strict leadership for the one side, led to a very unforeseen positive result for the opposing side.
This doesn’t make sense at the moment, since the war is ongoing (it is also inaccurate since Ukraine is not officially in NATO).
It is like saying that a cake is mushy, before baking it, or crunchy before mixing the ingredients. 
Well, of course it is. It is not over yet.
If the war ends, at some point, and the borders are solidified as they are now during the fighting, then both sides would have lost something. One side would have lost a significant amount of land and the other would have lost a geopolitical footing as you pointed out.
However wars rarely end “as is” in the trenches. We will have to wait and see.
The war will end some day and if history is any indication, treaties like that come with a lot caveats: restructured borders (in many cases a country won the local front and held a region, but gave it back in exchange for something else in the treaty), demilitirized zones, international peace-keeping forces, explicit promises to keep military bases away from the borders and so forth.
So, we just do not know yet. What you are saying will depend on who will actually win.
