They are all coherent and consistent in that they all recognise the true origins of the Ukraine conflict (e.g., going back to the Burns cable "Nyet Means Nyet" in 2008) and the role that the US played in overthrowing the Yanukovych government and starting the Ukraine conflict in 2014.

They are also all in agreement about the true nature and goal of Putin's operation in Ukraine, and yes, they all agree that the conflict, for Russia, is not about territory but rather about security, and they all agree that Putin has no interest in "conquering" all of Ukraine (let alone any other EU countries) but rather will only claim those 4-5 oblasts that have been historically Russian in nature.

Indeed, the only time Putin has said anything about the future of Western (non-Russian) Ukraine was to suggest that it may end up being partitioned by Poland and Romania: https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-warns-that-ukraine-could-be-invaded-and-occupied-by-poland-2023-7?op=1

As for MacGregor, he has acknowledged his initial mistake in predicting a "shock and awe" style operation by Russia in the early days. He has since corrected himself and recognised that Putin considers Ukraine to be a "fraternal people" of Russia and so does not want to destroy them completely, preferring instead to slowly grind down their military in a war of attrition rather than a US-style Blitzkrieg that would leave the Ukrainians with no water, no electricity and no future. His pronouncements over the past year have been to stress the slow and methodical nature of the Russian advance, with an emphasis on minimising battlefield casualties. Nonetheless, the result will be the same: abject and total capitulation by Ukraine.