This is always a close if not quite 'what-a-bout' arg that I don't really like. Granted, you can't do everything everywhere, but how could you ask for a better opportunity than 40 million people on the East gate of the 1st world just begging for nothing more than the help to do the job themselves? It's every foreign policy objective of the US for the last 70 yrs served up a silver (well, blue and yellow) platter and carries the support of every major ally. It's exactly everything Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan were not.
Do you just go bomb Moscow? No. But there is a way to put the Ukrainians in a winning position without starting WWIII. I think we have been close the correct track: keep upping the military capabilities of Ukraine so that options slowly close off to Russia one by one. This is 100% the frog in boiling water paradigm. You have to normalize each level of losing for the Russians before you go the next one. You want the situation for Russia to become hopeless, not dire. It's true that a Ukrainian might see this as a cynical way to fight the battle that asks greater sacrifices of them than if a NATO force just stormed right up to the Russian border, but you have to deal with peace after the war as well, and while I think we all want some kind of political upheaval in Russia, I don't think anyone wants to risk the possible consequences of its total collapse.