Not wanting to qualify the pilot and by no means implying of being the better one, this attempted landing is not really a success, much less a heroic act.
The final seems steady, with a distinct drift. On short final the pilot loses the centreline. This happens quite often with the larger aircraft as pilots tend to line up the cockpit and forget to do this with the center gear. If this happens a GA should be flown. Reason being is, if you correct late to continue, the last track is amended, away from the runway track. Perfectly visible here as the aircraft slides towards the upwind edge of the runway. This amendment then coincides with the flare and decrab. Out of this situation a (at least partial) decrab becomes necessary to align with the runway track. Mostly such a decrab will be more than usual and accompanied with a roll input to compensate. At the same time the AB logic kicks in with its own roll command (to keep the latest vector, which was not the one desired, see above). The double input on the roll will be slightly too big, leading to the pilots reaction to unroll. The wing comes up and will get additional lift from the wind. This, with the somewhat bigger rudder input, leads to a unwanted drift to downwind, demonstrated here again, as the aircraft ends up on the downwind edge of the runway.
Lesson: With a Airbus it is even more vital to stay on centreline (the one of the gear). Any deviation on short final is hugely difficult to undo, as the computer tries his part as well and in such brief time frames you end up fighting each other. A decrab technique is nice in steady wind conditions, but very tricky with gusts, thus the AB recommendation not to do so. I know these landings hurt the pride of all pilots, but if the technology does not allow it, go for the uncomfortable landing instead of the dangerous hit and GA.