Is this seriously the depth of your understanding of Russian tactics (what you described isn't a strategy to begin with...). I recommend watching every tactical analysis video on Mark Tacacs YT channel (he's a NATO military officer, not some pro-RU source):
1m is not a lot
Edit: as per my comment below, casualties are not deaths. It's a wider definition.
For anybody still questioning why the civilized word must stop Russia, i'd suggest to mediate a couple seconds over the parent comment (the commenter in the parent and in his other comments presents Russian position quite correctly)
The definition of which is quite wide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)
>"A casualty, as a term in military usage, is a person in military service, combatant or non-combatant, who becomes unavailable for duty due to any of several circumstances, including death, injury, illness, missing, capture or desertion."
1 million casualties is an absolutely massive number, regardless of your total population. How many of your fellow citizens would you be willing to throw into the meatgrinder until you say “that not ok”?
If you are Putin? All of them. So yes, Putin is winning, he hasn't even used up 10% of his army's acceptable losses yet.
1 million is basically an entire birth year of men ages 30-45, or two entire birth years of their male population from ages 20-30, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/...
Imagine all the men of your entire high school / college graduating class being either killed or seriously wounded so Putin can grab a few thousand km of territory.
Now they could allow women in combat roles, but I severely doubt it for this conflict. It would be extraordinarily unpopular and go against the narrative they have been selling their populace for decades.