Interesting think piece and the outcomes are certainly plausible, but given what we've seen of Russia's ability to conduct maneuver warfare away from their supply lines, I think you've vastly over simplified the results.
For example, the Russians have been pushing hard against Mikolayiv for almost their entire campaign (since seizing Kershon early on), and they have not made any headway.
Their material assets are nearly exhausted, and the main way to put 1 million Russian soldiers on the ground in Ukraine is either through muddy boots or light skinned vehicles. That kind of quantity is still easy to defeat with artillery and machine guns.
It is also unclear how the Russians would advance near Lyiv when they've demonstrated that they do not have the power projection capabilities to do so. They got to the Dnieper and just beyond near Kyiv and then got beaten back.
The question of nukes is another interesting point, but I don't think the trigger for using them is in Ukraine. They have other methods that they can employ that may yield the same impact but at less of a political cost that will get NATO involved. Putin may be a lot of things, but he isn't stupid and he isn't insane.
Finally, even if Russia were to topple the Ukrainian government and seize even 50% of the territory, they'd have to hold it. It is simply untenable to mobilize a million man army and supply it long enough to crush the inevitable insurgency. Doing that exact thing something with a quarter of that force size for ten years in Afghanistan led to the collapse of the USSR.
So while this is an interesting exercise in understanding the dynamics of attritional warfare, you have to factor in both manpower and industry. Russia has one, and not the other.
Frankly, even if Russia wins this game, it will lose the series.
I've been doing a great deal of my own writing and analysis about this conflict. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts, as well!
