If the alternative is repeated military actions like Crimea and now Ukraine, against border nations with Russia, attempting to annex or suborn them, maybe a long-term occupation of Russia by NATO nations is the healthier option. Of course we don't want to do that, but if the alternative is shit like the Russo-Ukrainian War, it's still the better option. A quick check shows that, since the collapse of the USSR and the Russian Federation emerging in '91, they've been engaged in conflict with their border states pretty close to without real pause that entire period. From the Georgian Civil War involvement and the South Ossetian War, right through to the Russo-Ukrainian War, which has been ongoing since 2014.
That kind of action can work. Look at modern Japan and Germany. And it didn't take 50 years to achieve results.
It isn't about such an occupation being all cuddly and pleasant and happy. It's that the alternatives, as demonstrated by better than 30 years of recent history, are worse.