There are no good options left here, I believe Ukraine is stuck between bad and worst. Fighting should only go on for as long as there's a chance to change the outcome. Ukraine doesn't benefit from additional loss of life once the the outcome becomes inevitable. West sending in encouragements and military weapons, rarely means that its in that nations best interest, just means that its to the West's benefit.
There is no indication that "the West" can influence Ukrainians to stop or continue fighting. Giving them weapons gives them a chance.
Do you think that Ukrainians stand to win if escalations lead to true carpet bombings and a huge loss of life? US set a terrible precedence on how to get a nation to accept its terms (and culturally Japan was much more reluctant), and your whole strategy on escalations based on Russia not doing the same (minus the nukes)? When you're far away it's easy to encourage Ukrainians and send them weapons you're not risking your life, with the added bonus of undercutting Putin, but is it ethical? History is written by the winners, just look at US/Japan relationship now.
My strategy? And how far do you think I am LOL. I hope it's the figurative "you".
Now the real "me" has no doubt that the only way to make the conflict worse for Ukrainians and Eastern (and probably all of) Europe is to not support them and/or try to convince them to surrender to Putin. Carpets or no carpets, Ukrainians don't want to live in Putin's Russia, and for a good reason. So much so that they consider dying while defending their land as an acceptable alternative.
So the choice isn't escalation vs no escalation, the choice is Ukrainians using Javelins vs using rocks and potatoes. I don't think that rocks and potatoes would result in fewer Ukrainian casualties. It would also likely result in Putin marching on to other countries.