I think what you offer is a valid small nation perspective. But Ukraine actually is not one. Indeed, after three years of war and without offering the numerous caveats available with respect to weapons and losses, I would argue they currently represent the most powerful military purely in Europe.
What they have accomplished logistically with a kaleidoscope of weaponry and munitions from Soviet stocks to current production from the West is something I would have predicted as impossible just a few years ago. Their drone innovation has changed warfare. Since the defeat of the initial Russian offensive, Russia has gained only an additional 1% of Ukrainian territory at the cost of a million casualties.
The F-16 is a fine 4th generation fighter. But it is not a penetrator acting on its own. In US hands, it would only be used over hostile territory once stealth aircraft and long range missile fires had neutralized enemy air defenses. Ukraine does not have that option. As a result, it is primarily being used as a cruise missile interceptor. I would note the Russian air force has proven itself totally ineffective following the first weeks of the conflict.
The 2023 offensive did indeed fail. NATO, to include US leadership, pushed Ukraine to attempt it with inadequate forces and training. I disagree with your assessment of the Kursk offensive. Its purpose was to relieve pressure on the Donetsk front as the current defensive belt was completed. In that it succeeded. It also represented a political and military embarrassment to Russian leadership. I suspect Ukraine was surprised by its initial success. Because of it they were able to tie down 70,000 Russian troops, force Putin on his knees to Pyongyang for more, and inflict over thirty thousand casualties.
Other than Russia, the only nation that has failed in this conflict has been the US. Unlike the rest of NATO, the US has vast stockpiles of modern armored vehicles that could have been provided to Ukraine in numbers that would have overwhelmed Russia's older and far less capable reserve weaponry. The Biden administration, in what is still an unfathomable set of decisions decided instead on a minimalist strategy that simply kept the UA in the fight.
3700 M1 Abrams tanks are currently sitting in storage. They will never again be used by American forces in combat. Yes, much of that inventory would take work to make combat ready, but even the oldest models are an overmatch for any T-72 or T64 that ever rolled of an assembly line. The Biden administration provided a grand total of 31. Those 3700 are still sitting there and represent an offensive capability for which Russia would have no meaningful answer - as do over 800 M2 Brads.
But to your primary point, yes, with the failure of the US to provide meaningful offensive military capability, Ukraine will have to cede territory to achieve "peace." (And no, the weaponry provided by the first Trump administration also was not of an offensive capability nature). I am absolutely certain that Russia could be forced to withdraw from the portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia they currently control for clear "title" to the Crimea and what they hold in the Donbas. Sadly, I see the Trump administration is as loathe to use diplomatic pressure as Biden was to provide meaningful military aid.
www.statista.com
