Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions.
All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ...
> How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ...
Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now.
Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians.
Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ).
See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?