I get where you're coming from. I don't necessarily wish for military support that was operated (flown or boots on the ground), by nato countries. Early in the war I was hoping for a coalition aerial campaign to purely defend ukrainian territory, but I guess that's no longer in the realm of possibilities.

IMO at the present time russia only has two steps left for escalation, nukes or general mobilization. Those steps would hopefully only be seen as viable, if russia was fighting actual nato personnel (they aren't).

I don't see the west providing the most effective military material possible (excl nukes ofc.) to Ukraine as a good enough reason russia to escalate with either option. That includes an actually meaningful amount of fighter jets, long range strike capabilities and enough armored equipment to make a real difference.

Saying that fighter jets aren't cost effective is a moot point if you compare the price of equipping the military for one effective push in comparison to the cost of a prolonged war.