The first paragraph is somewhat correct, the second is not.

The Russians did not have enough troops to occupy Kyiv. They gambled that the Ukraine gov't would fold. They lost that gamble. In the east, they won that gamble. Russia has maintained nearly all the land it took in the Donbas (more anon).

Near Kharkiv the Russians made the Ukrainians pay a huge price in men and equipment to take back land, as Russia is still doing holding the eastern part of Kherson.

Neither paragraph supports your theory that Russia is "losing badly." Russia's goals were to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine and secure the Donbas. I don't know how to quantify the "de-Nazifying process," but since Ukraine cannot continue to fight without constant weapons being delivered from the West, Russia is definitely demilitarizing Ukraine. Along with that is the destruction of electrical infrastructure needed to move military equipment from Poland (mostly) to the east.

Even LiveUAMap is admitting that Russia is taking the area around Bakhmut. Fierce fighting, but Ukraine is slowly losing in the Donbas.

Russia took over 25% of the country, Ukraine wins back 7%, and now Russia has taken back about 2% and growing.

In what universe is that "losing badly?" Losing badly would mean Russia is out of Ukraine, or at least everything except Crimea.

Instead, the West keeps escalating weapons: Stingers, Javelins, M777, HIMARS, now main battle tanks. Every time Russia has takens a few weeks to adapt, then continued pusing on their main objectives. Again, in no universe is that "losing badly."

I am not "pro-Russian." I have no dog in this hunt. I am just looking at the facts on the ground and see Russia holding their own and slowly winning alone against the combined weapons (and some troops) of all of NATO. That is not "losing badly."