Russia is not militarily strong enough is a very different situation from that Russia purposefully doesn't use its entire capabilities, because it doesn't need them, in order to win in the long run, and they are better withheld for its inner economic and socio-political stability, and in case NATO invades, these are two different things.
Reality is not black and white like in fiction, this is the real world. Only simple-minded individuals measure gains in the territory as only military objectives, in the war of attrition, logistical numbers and formulas are way more important, for example, who has bigger military-industrial production, what are the long-term trends in that area, long-term demographic changes in both quantity and quality, of ordinary citizens and military personnel available, etc.
So if Russia analyzes and sees that they will certainly win on some longer timeframe even if they don't need to wreck their economy and society, right away, they are going to do just that, they are a real country thinking long term. They are looking at the future, Ukraine is done eventually, and they are looking to preserve as many resources for the fight against the West of the 21st century. That's what every smart leader would've also done if they were in Putin's place.
Russia is not like an inefficient Frankenstein of a country like the US where Biden simply could wreck their entire strategic oil reserves, and the long-term economic prospects just to win some elections that are happening every two years. I guess, if Biden was on Putin's pace, he would've gone all out being wasteful and destructive in the process as much as possible, whereas Putin knows that he will always be in power, and thinks about what's best for Russian interests for decades ahead - not for some short term, personal rhetorical points or bragging rights - and Russians seemingly appreciate that approach.
That long-term strategic outlook is exactly why the Russian economy is growing faster than all countries in G7, their oil and budget revenues are on pre-war levels, and their deficits and debt ratios falling even though they are at war (unlike in the peace-time West), whereas 30% of the population support leaders in the West, on average, Putin has an 80-90% rating.
They have way less civil protests, mass riots, political crises, and divisions than the 'peaceful' West, despite Russia being in the war. So who has longer chances for survival and thriving as a civilization then? Russia in a war is more stable than the West and will outlive them with almost certainty if this continues. Look at the industrial differences and inefficiency of it in the West. The West still hasn't started to experience true inner rot that is about to come on every level. Who is going to outlast whom in this 'stalemate'?
So, essentially, Russian citizens don't even feel this war, except for a few terrorist attacks, look at the sad and tragic situation in Ukraine, 20% of territory lost, TFR is decimated, 10 million left, the demographic pyramid is screwed on every level, and no infrastructure, no economy, and foreign donations just to pay pensions and other social expenditures, educational results wrecked, collateralized debt to Western vampires (public assets) risen tremendously, to fund the war, etc. Who exactly did 'fail' between the two of them then?
That is a territory with ZERO possibility of recovering and prospering ever again 100%, outside of some fantastic and science fiction scenarios perhaps, however, their favorite 'heroic' Ukraine is still "winning" in the eyes of stupid Westoids. Who cares about statistics, and hundreds of thousands dead, when we have some Telegram post of some Russian plane being destroyed, that is that low IQ kind of line of their 'thought'.
