Someone's been divining bright ideas from watching media rattlers at Fox News.
Russia could smash Kiev into a pile of steaming trash within the next five minutes if they wanted a "blitz." Everyone knows that, except you.
Also, anyone with half-an-ass education knows what a blitzkrieg looks like, especially when the aggressor completely owns the sky.
Perhaps you do not know the difference between a blitz and a formal siege. It is clear that they ran troops down the road thinking that they could take Kyiv with little resistance. If their objective was not Kyiv why then did they attack it from both the north and the east? I will concede that perhaps with their overwhelming superiority of artillery that they might be able to level and take Kyiv. But this would have been a protracted and bloody affair (see Stalingrad), the precise opposite of a blitz.
The Russian may well win in the end, but for now they tried to capture Kyiv and failed.