b) Winter may not play a role as much as it did in WWII. Things have changed quite a bit. Particularly near Kherson, the temperature in winter is certainly not enough to stop operations by modern standards. Whoever is counting on that is up for a surprise.
Winter will serve Russia indirectly, given the economic war it is waging against Ukraine's allies regarding gas. Winter is always on the side of the Russians.
c) The RF is not backfilling with "soldiers" is backfilling the estimated 80.000 soldiers killed with a number of forced conscripts with little training and no will to fight. That is not a "soldier" that is a "slave" wielding a weapon.
I agree with you on this point because all the Russian armed forces, in addition to the reserve forces that were forcibly called up, do not have enough experience to fight a field war in the classical way. But we should not forget the large number of these soldiers, who are undoubtedly capable of making a difference, no matter how many losses they have.
As for your knowledge of history, it sucks. Napoleon experienced winter far north, pretty much from Moscow and on the way back to France with XIX century equipment - and not even winter equipment as such - and no supply lines. Ukraine is fighting at home with the backing of most developed countries.
What I meant by the example of Napoleon was not to acknowledge that Russia had succeeded in defeating him, but rather that winter was and always is a catalyst for Russia.