They landed airborne troops at the capital, and had a very long convoy headed for the capital.

Regardless of what they said, they tried to attack the capital. That says more about whether they tried to take the capital than public statements.

> their goals was to take the capital.

You think those large amount of troops and resources, that were in the process of attempting to surround and take the capital were just sacrificed for no reason?

They spent a lot of resources on those attacks, and they didn't gain much from them.

Surely you should consider that it was a mistake, and don't think it was intentional for them to have taken such losses with little to show for it.

You're thinking like a westerner as are so many other armchair generals. Russia military doctrine has more tolerance for loosing people and equipment if that helps achieve their end goal.

But you understand that there isn't some end goal that doing this failed offensive helps right?

As in, they could have just not done a failed attack on the capital, and instead focused their troops on other regions to achieve some other goal.

However many resources they sacrificed on that attack could have been sacrificed elsewhere more effectively, which shows pretty clearly that this specific failed offensive wasn't some success and instead was a failed offensive that they had to back off on.