Is the West too complacent about Putin's "strategic" failure?

Ever since Putin and his invasion army failed to take Kyiv in a blitzrieg attack at the beginning of the assault on Ukraine it has been a source of comfort to Nato and Nato's partners that the Russian leader had suffered a strategic failure. This comforting conclusion was repeated yet again today by Anthony Blinken, the US secretary of state, in a TV interview. The trouble is the war is more than four months old and things have changed. Putin, yes, failed to grab Kyiv in the first few days of the invasion as it seems he had planned and a helluva lot of things went wrong for him, mostly the failure by his army chiefs to get the logistics side of the invasion sorted out. Tanks ran out of fuel, soldiers ran out of food and water, and a huge amount of armour was destroyed by the Ukrainian military as the Russian convoys ground to a halt. But Putin appointed a Big Cheese general to take charge and here we are four months later and the Russians have destroyed several cities, reducing them to rubble - Mariupol being the first to get the treatment - and the Donbas region in the east is steadily falling into Russian hands. Putin has a new strategy and he is reminding the likes of Blinken that he hasn't dropped his initial strategy because he is pounding Kyiv with missile strikes and is probably hoping that it will eventually force a surrender to avoid the capital also being turned to dust. So, in reality, there is no comfort zone for the West, let alone for poor Ukraine which has suffered untold casualties and property destruction. Putin is still in charge and the Russians are still advancing. I don't think it is either realistic or truthful to try and put it across that Putin has suffered a mighty strategic defeat. Tell that to the millions of Ukrainians who have had their lives ruined, probably for ever.