Have a look at the graveyard of firms that tried being Intel Foundry customers over the past 15 years. Achronix was the perfect early foundry customer for Intel: FPGAs have regular physical structures replicated over the entire die. Yet they abandoned Intel as their early fab partner. Then Intel bought Altera and fucked it up as well.
Intel is on par with Google for killing non-core products. Look at StrongARM, various network processors, ultrawideband, ia64, their cellular modems... Anything that isn't going to directly help sell an x86 server, desktop or laptop CPU can be chopped, or at least not given the support needed to flourish. This was fine for decades, and Intel made a tonne of money doing that because that's what happens with monopolies: they print money. However, that strategy fell apart once the cost of fabs and fab R&D became high enough that more products across different market segments (read as: non-core market segments that Intel middle management doesn't care about) are required to generate a fair return on investment. Just look at how many top tier customers TSMC is able to amortize its fab R&D over today compared to Intel.
Any significant culture change at Intel is going to be nearly impossible given the inertia of 124,000 employees doing what they've always done.
Risk in hardware is many orders of magnitude worse than in software, so the people making the decisions about what fab to use for a product tend to make much more conservative choices to help minimize risk. Intel as a fab partner is risky. Who in their right mind would select Intel when even Intel's own internal design teams made the decision to outsource manufacturing of some CPUs to TSMC in recent years? Intel has a lot of trust to build amongst hardware designers before that will happen at any significant scale.
Additionally, I feel a lot of people are forgetting their biggest surefire customer--the United States military. If they get anything operational, even at 2x or 3x the cost of TSMC, the US will buy them and give them the resources and experience to serve larger markets, as the US has done with computing in the past.
They have a mountain to climb, for sure, but the path towards recovery still seems possible as long as Uncle Sam wants to buy from them.
For reference, Intel CPU sales are on the order of 50 million units per year. As a comparison, Apple is selling on the order of 232 million iPhones per year. This is why missing the entire mobile market has hurt Intel, and there's no way the US military is buying more than 232 million of anything other than bullets (and maybe paper products).
The subsidies being paid to Intel and other manufacturers aren't a substitute for volume manufacturing of semiconductors. The more volume you can push through a fab, the more information you can collect and use to understand how to tune the process. Without the kind of volume that TSMC is pushing through its fabs, Intel doesn't have a way of getting the data it needs to tune its fabs. Less data on the process means that it's harder to develop and tune the next generation process. This means that the longer the negative aspects keep feeding into the next iteration, the harder it becomes to pull out of the negative feedback cycle.
Intel needs volume, and if it doesn't find something to run through their fabs in the hundreds of millions of units, then things can only get worse for Intel.