It seems to me this is a more legitimate topic than some think it is.
What do the phrases 'defensive weapons' and 'offensive weapons' mean, both literally and as used for policy reasons?
I've thought about that before a bit, and it would be a nice neat definition if some weapons were only used against incoming attacks, and others were only used for offensive attacks. But when you think about it, that's not the case. Show me a weapon, and I'll show you a range from 'used more for defense to offense' to 'hard to tell which it's more for', e.g. machine guns.
And so the terms do seem muddy. Not meaningless, not useless, but muddy.
And it gets muddier because the terms seem to be used in order to settle the topic of what weapons are 'ok' to give in order to not provoke or escalate nuclear war. It's a nice neat answer - defensive weapons are ok and offensive weapons aren't - but the initial muddiness makes that a problem, and it's pretty important as the words are being used to decide what weapons are sent.
We are saying 'our anti-tank missiles, anti-air missiles, small arms, and drones we all call "defensive" so they're ok, but Mig aircraft we call offensive and that's the reason we refuse to give them'.
The language implies that the difference lies in the weapon - this weapon is defensive and that one is offensive - but the muddiness leads people to say 'oh, no, that's not it - it's whether they're used for defense or offense, it's their intent'.
And in that light it's a very fair question to ask, why is a drone used to shoot attacker troops and tanks a 'defensive' weapon we can give, while a Mig Aircraft used to shoot attacker troops, tanks and aircraft not a defensive weapon we can give?
It's not the fact it flies, or blows things up, or is clearly extremely more effective or pretty much any other clear difference in function. They're both used by the same side for the purpose.
So - a main point to this - throwing the label "defensive" on the drone and "offensive" on the MiG seems based entirely or nearly entirely on wanting the word to serve the purpose of justifying why one can be given and one can't.
And while it might be argued, 'don't rock the boat on topics around avoiding escalating to nuclear war, just go along', it's a pretty reasonable issue. Both the reporter and Psaki might be criticized for not being clear about it. I think there is a case that Psaki was not really justified with a snarky 'you need a remind who invaded who' answer. ANd normally I'd love to see her give Fox the snarky answers they deserve.
This topic I think deserves a better answer. Now let me speculate possible reason if not justification for Psaki giving a wrong answer.
And it's because the administration is trying to avoid nuclear war, by playing with unclear made-up rules based on nothing where one guy can decide to launch nukes for any reason, and they're trying to find a middle road between helping Ukraine a lot, while not causing escalation that might lead to, say, a tactical nuclear weapon being used.
And for that purpose they're trying to pretend there is this neat division about 'defensive weapons' and 'offensive weapons' so they can say, 'see we are clearly following the (made-up) rules of what we can do that doesn't escalate', and they don't want to put salt on the wound by saying how unclear and arbitrary it is as they decide MiGs won't be given, and so they gloss over it with a snarky answer. Let me remind you who invaded whom. Next?
And in that situation, Psaki did an outstanding job by dodging the question, and Fox was raising a dangerous topic. But it wasn't a ridiculous one.
nypost.com
www.euronews.com
