I agree with most of this but not the last paragraph - this has exposed weaknesses in the Russian military and has galvanised the West for a moment. A cessation of hostilities may be temporary but any time that could reduce dependence on the Russians is going to be vital.
I'm not sure about that. Wars tend to move more slowly than Twitter feeds. It took the Americans two weeks to capture Baghdad and at the time the US military was criticised for its reckless haste. Russia seems to have the bulk of the Ukrainian military pinned down if not already surrounded in the East; it probably has control of the entire Black Sea coast within reach, and they are also steadily advancing up the Dnieper where they may even be planning to link up with Kiev, if they really wanted to make a go of it. At that point they can probably settle on whatever terms they like, most likely: recognition of Crimea (which in 2014 and certainly now almost unanimously prefers to remain Russian); de facto control of the Eastern statelets, and a government in Ukraine that while never likely to be friendly won't join NATO or the EU or act as though the West is interested in protecting it, either. Sure, they're facing logistical challenges - virtually all armies of this size do - and they are losing tanks and planes unexpectedly. But there is, by design, a good deal of slack - they probably have three times more tanks than the entire rest of Europe combined, for instance.
Since somebody will at this point probably accuse me of being an FSB agent or a Putin sympathizer I hasten to add that what Russia is doing to Ukrainian cities is - I would hope it goes without saying - utterly deplorable and immoral. It should never have been allowed to come to this, not least because neither Russia nor NATO/EU actually want Ukraine to be a member of the latter.