I agree with all of your excellent points.
For #5, I hope they just throw the entire military might at Ukraine. Why only commit 200K and drag this war so long with "manuevers warfare", for fuck sakes, send in the entire army. Why keep troops in reserves?
Well, if I remember correctly, you were talking about "blitzkrieg" earlier on the conflict. I might be wrong.
But the thing is, you can't do an exact "blitzkrieg" with today's military technology, and Russian forces available to this campaign is NOT enough for even a modified-for-modern-warfare version of a "blitzkrieg".
I know you want a clean, "摧枯拉朽、秋风扫落叶" style one-fell-swoop fast war by the Russians. But they are NOT a rich country, they have a military budget that is relatively a very high percentage of their GDP. But at the same time, they are maintaining a strategic nuclear strike and second strike capability that is a close parallel to the USA, with only a fraction of the total budget of the US military budget.
When you have such lack of money, you are bound to cut short on stuff. Russian conventional forces is bound to be lacking in many aspects. And this war has shown that they are lacking the resources to conduct large scale deep penetration ground offensives. This is why I am actually NOT seeing a future mid-to-long term strengthening and increase in NATO's European major power's military budget to be used in the conventional forces to counter a large and powerful deep penetration ground offensives. Because most NATO analyst will believe that Russia don't have such capabilities that will require a huge NATO upgrade in that arena.
However, there will still be budget increase in NATO, but I think they will mostly spent it on informationization, drones, and AI/ML usage, etc. instead. Or if they (France, Germany, etc) are really aggressive, they would start investing in short, mid and intermediate range ballistic missiles.