Update: from the moment I downloaded and placed this video on this site, the video from Sky News was blocked and not allowed to be found. Basically the narrators revealed 4 reasons that Russia was losing the war.
1.Underestimating the opponent. If Putin doesn't win quickly, he doesn't win
2.Costly early mistakes, poor communications. Ukraine killed 8 Russian generals - more than any other wars of this type
3. Poor logistics, troop convoys stalled and ran out of fuel and supplies. They became easy targets by hi-tech weapons given to the Ukrainians
4.Lack of air superiority. Lack of sufficient training time for Russian pilots and vulnerability to shoulder fired missiles neutralized Russian air power. Poor morale. Troops not told what their mission was until hey had already invaded Ukraine.

One month on, President Zelenskyy remains in office and Russia has failed in its initial objective. So is Putin losing the war?
Security and defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke gives his take.
https://youtu.be/uEiBQQLj0SI

My comment: This is a fairly balanced report, but lacks Russia's perspective in why they have not done more. According to researchers Putin has held back on purpose to reduce the amount of civilian casualties and to keep the Ukrainian system intact.

Since both sides in a war are hesitant for strategic reasons to list the exact death counts and loss of military equipment, we are vulnerable to biased or incomplete reports. However, it appears obvious that the true objective of Putin was not achieved and the losses on Russian equipment and casualties is larger than anticipated. The question is where will it go from here?

Looking at this war as a football game, the Russians won in the first half and now we're in the second half and the momentum has realistically reversed, to the point the score is tied or slightly in Ukraine's favor.

It is possible Putin and his military can change the course of the battle, but it may mean a change in war strategy and the use of more powerful weapons. In short, Putin has to go big or go home.
The main stream media keeps mentioning the use of chemical weapons by Russia, after they uncovered Ukrainian bio-labs. But the use of chemical weapons would only add to the firestorm of anti-Russian fervor in the masses.
The use of a tactical nuke may not be much better. Plus, the shock of any nuke being used in a war - the first time officially since WW2 - could send shockwaves of fear around the globe and become the catalyst for Nato nations to declare war on Russia.

It would also be difficult for Putin to call a victory and then retreat without making any land gains. As it stands now it is a waiting game for both sides as Ukraine starts running out of food and supplies.
Russia is trying to outlast them and hold what ground they have taken already. But the wild card is Nato making a move to send in more supplies and weapons. Any conflict inside Ukraine between Nato forces and Russian forces would escalate the war to a dangerous level.
We live in interesting times. GE