[TrumpCard]

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

So much to unpack here.  
Why is seizing oil tankers the right approach?  Is that even feasible without starting a wider war?
Do we have reason to think the West is saying nothing about attacks on infrastructure?  For example, do we think that the West has not threatened ATACMS if Russia does X, Y, or Z?  
What economic costs would Russia be unable to control/handle, and can those costs be imposed without a wider war?
Is there benefit to the current approach even if Russia appears likely to win in the end?
Is it feasible for NATO to do more right now, or are there members who could/would cause problems if NATO became more actively involved on Ukraine's side of the conflict?
I'm sure there are many more appropriate questions.  I am not saying that you're preferred approach of being more aggressive would be the wrong one.  I'm just saying that the one short paragraph seems to gloss over a number of big issues.

[TrumpCard]

IMO the "west", particularly the US, has not done themselves any favors here. It should have been made clear to Russia when they started attacking Ukrainian infrastructure that for every missile they fired into a power plant, one of their oil tankers would be seized. There has to be a cost to Russia or they can just pound Ukraine into the dust and walk in afterwards. This is IMO obvious. It may take years, but they can do it if 1) they are foolish enough to think it is worth it and 2) there are no economic costs they can't control. While nobody wants a wider war, we can't allow Russia to define the parameters in a way Ukraine simply can't win. We needed to make it clear to Putin et al that there was no way we were going to let them set the ROE to their overwhelming advantage. There is also the question of how long "the west" will support Ukraine militarily if the way ahead appears to be the eventual destruction of Ukraine. Hard to argue it is a good idea if it can't succeed.

So much to unpack here.  
Why is seizing oil tankers the right approach?  Is that even feasible without starting a wider war?
Do we have reason to think the West is saying nothing about attacks on infrastructure?  For example, do we think that the West has not threatened ATACMS if Russia does X, Y, or Z?  
What economic costs would Russia be unable to control/handle, and can those costs be imposed without a wider war?
Is there benefit to the current approach even if Russia appears likely to win in the end?
Is it feasible for NATO to do more right now, or are there members who could/would cause problems if NATO became more actively involved on Ukraine's side of the conflict?
I'm sure there are many more appropriate questions.  I am not saying that you're preferred approach of being more aggressive would be the wrong one.  I'm just saying that the one short paragraph seems to gloss over a number of big issues.