In all honesty cost for rebuilding _civilian_ infrastructure offset by a complete settling of all debts, ideally with an acknowledgement that the fighting was ultimately triggered by them regardless of the factors. Not that it was illegal, best let history decide that, but to put on paper they are the provocateur would be reasonable in that regard.
Not sure I believe the press either side over civilian exodus vs evacuations so I'll leave that to the negotiations.
And as a nice bonus a demilitarised zone and a framework for settling future disputes involving a 3rd party(parties).
With regards to land, imo that's unfortunately best either traded for goods or leave it as is. I'm not sure the original population needed for a sensible mandate in terms of political change exists anymore so any cries from the population either way have been let down by their leaders.

As for us no NATO, elections, settling of debts and disarmament probably backed by the reshaping of borders because what else does Ukraine have other than mineral wealth. And probably some agreement to build a gas framework that actually works or an agreement to dismantle the pipelines through this territory.
As for EU protections Russia never used to object to that but the name calling may have changed their minds.

Edit:
Name-calling tends to happen once someone had struck close to an unfortunate truth. At that point it's no longer a discussion or even an argument, it has descended into anarchy.

As it stands Russia's concerns were multi-faceted. 1) The un-elected negotiations toward ascension into NATO brought on by a Western backed convicted corrupt oligarch. 2) Said group was referring to itself as "Fatherland", last time we saw such rhetoric we ended up paying the price for several years. 3) There was no significant attempt after the revolutions to curtail talks of this nature and the political status-quo probably stood to benefit to pleading ignorant. 4) The debts from the gas pipeline are not insignificant, it's the reason Germany kept the peace broadly.

Russia was wrong to invade. This could have been settled otherwise, but would have taken a lot longer and would have been costly, i.e. economic warfare or trade disputes. Ultimately the nordic states changing their affiliation from neutral to pro-NATO has weakened Russia's hand so in that regard this invasion has already cost them face, as well as political and strategic manoeuvrability in this region.

If elections were such a foregone conclusion nobody would mind this statement, the reality is we expect change as a result, much as Chruchil never became de-facto king.

Want something from someone after spending months insulting them, don't be surprised when trust has gone which is the start of negotiations and ultimately the bedrock peace is built on. An example of that was recently demonstrated in the whitehouse where someone could have recently said, "yes and thankyou" and received all the help they could have wanted, but due to some biblical almost aesopian level of pride this never happened so no the reality on the ground changes. There's a reason for the saying of the pen is mightier than the sword.

Appeasement would be the further surrender of lands, the admission of guilt through actions that concerned and weren't approved of. The admission of guilt bearing the cost of rebuilding. The acknowledgement that certain other super-powers tried to extend their reach too far, and the surrender of land based not on ethnic breakdown but on capital gain. That is appeasement and thankfully is not something either side has seriously expected out of peace negations (yet, either side could say/do something stupid tomorrow I suppose).