I'll argue again ;) After 2 1/2 years we do. What Ukraine needs most of all is enough firepower to sever the land bridge to Crimea. That's been the case from the beginning.

Russian elites know where Crimea is and enjoy vacationing there. Kursk? Couldn't care less. Why send troops to Kursk when you can attack from the air. For Kursk to mean something Ukraine would have to set up defense positions around it. Are they doing that? I doubt it because it would extend the front line quite a bit and they already can't hold the current one (because the West have no real commitment to building munitions factories or giving up F-16s, etc).

The reason the U.S. won't let Ukraine hit long range targets is not, I believe, a fear of nuclear escalation. It's a desire not to completely antagonize the Chinese and India who depend on oil/gas shipments. YES, Ukraine can hit refineries and storage that serve Russian, but NOT anything that would effect global markets. Or push China into fully supporting Russia or blockading Taiwan.

The West is only giving enough support to protect Western Ukraine and harass the Putin regime. Again, I argue, it's not because the U.S. won't. It's because it can't. The U.S. military has been disintegrating for decades. It's one of the reasons politicians plays dumb about Israeli atrocities.

U.S. policy is driven by U.S. oligarchs. There's no idealism anymore.