The other pay-off is the total focus on this Bakhmut instead of a dozen other initiatives is a good thing. Over the past 4 months it has been beneficial to essentially cause a stalemate, assuming Ukraine will soon be able to launch new offensives with the tanks and other equipment it will be receiving.

Oh, and the third pay-off is the discord being sown between Wagner and the Russian Army HQ.

My only concern about the current situation in Bakhmut is the extent to which this has become a symbolic battle, which might distort Ukraine's perception of how to fight this battle. If Ukraine maintains a cold-blooded analysis of the cost-benefit of keeping the battle going (which means minimum 3:1 advantage, and ideally at least 5:1) plus stalling any new offensives until they are ready, then it's a good decision. But if Ukraine gets romantic and decides to "fight to the last man" and keep pouring resources into that battle, regardless of cost, then that is foolish. I fear that we might already be in that realm.

But whatever PR victory comes to whichever side, it will pale in consequence to the first big moves of the spring, when the tanks roll in. Once that happens, no one will care what happens in Bakhmut.

but heres some insight
the great ukrainien tactic is move in apartment shot a few times, then after russians discover it then move into in the next apartment
of course russia wont play hide n seek so they shot to ruin the building

city itself is about 30 sq KM
densely built
so how do you think anyone could make it faster trough?

or reversing the question why ukraine could not force out russians from bakhmut within 6 months?

then seeing whats happening in bakhmut its just a proof russia didnt want to focus on kharkov
and pulled back themselves
not ukraine fought them out

you can twist it on many way, but facts will stay facts