Given a satellite (black) orbiting a planet (green) in a circular motion with $r_o$ being the orbital radius.
The orbital the velocity of the satellite is $v_{orbit}=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r_o}}$, right?
If the satellite would have started from the earths surface it would have at least needed the escape speed $v_{escape}\geq\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r_e}}$ with $r_e$ being the earths radius ($=6371$km), to escape the earth's gravitational field for ever, right?
If the satellite is stable in it's circular orbit $r_o$ and I then would permanently increase $v$ to a velocity of the satellite in the range of $v_{orbit} < v < v_{escape\,orbit}$ it would just turn the orbit into an ellipse, right? [as suggested here: what-happens-to-a-satellites-orbit-when-you-speed-it-up]
So it would suggest that if the satellite is stable in it's circular orbit $r_o$, the velocity to escape the earths gravitational field from this orbit for ever would be to increase the velocity of the satellite to $v_{escape.orbit}\geq\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r_o}}$, right? [This answer suggests differently if I understand it correctly: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/382753]
So why is it that when comparing the oposing gravitational force $F_G$ and centrifugal force $F_Z$ with $F_G = F_Z \rightarrow \frac{GmM}{r_o^2}=m\frac{v_{orbit}^2}{r_o}$ a small increase in velocity would lead to a small increase in radius by which $F_G$ would decrease quadratically, but $F_Z$ just linearly. So it would suggest that an infinitally small increase in radius at a stable orbit would lead to an irreversible escape out of the orbit. [Which would suggest the solution from Farcher at the answer above]
So Is there something wrong with my logic or the understanding of the given questions/answers. How would my statements above be true? Is it generally better to think in terms of energy than forces when talking about orbits?