I agree we need to take the pain and cut off their oil. It's going to have a profound and shockingly underestimated push on our own economy (I'm seeing some projections of eight dollar gas by summer by some colleagues in the oil and gas industry). At eight dollars, it has waves out including food prices, shipping, commodities, and even if it is worth it for some people to work. I agree it's a price that needs to be paid.
But as we've discussed, I don't think a no fly zone is the way to go unless you want to risk nuclear war. By definition it involves NATO airstrikes into Russian territory (including the loss of civilian life since Putin will no doubt use the insurgent playbook and stick his anti air in schools), and likely Russian retaliation with cruise missiles and the first line combat aircraft it has in reserve to Poland, Germany, and Romania to hit airbases. You are gambling that the US action will cause the generals to throw out Putin, because we've established already Putin is not acting fully rationally.
It's ok to argue this position, but let's be clear you are arguing for a risk of nuclear war now (as opposed to the future where Putin, who may not even be there, may or may not be in a position to take further action considering how bankrupt he is and will grow weaker year over year). That's just funny coming from you, considering how both COVID freaked you were and how concerned about climate change (even a few tactical nukes is a climate disaster).
I had a tangentel touch BTW on the Reagan cold war policy. My college advisor was one of the people who contributed to the evil empire speech. I was pro hawk. But even the hawks were clear that if we had militarily intervened with actual troops or planes in Hungary and Czechoslovankia, WWIII would be a likely result.