I responded directly to the questions you asked! Read your own questions. The weapons I listed would be viewed as offensive, rather than defensive. As for the notion that "nobody has supported giving Ukraine nuclear weapons, etc., etc", the fact is that idiots on this very website have advocated 'nuking Russia. Moreover, as far as anyone knows, nobody has totally ruled out everything on your list of modern weaponry - the conflict isn't even 2 months old yet.
Western nations - MULTILATERALLY - have to agree on what to provide Ukraine, and how they can provide it.
That you responded "directly" to my mockery of typical administration excuses isn't in question. What is in question is your defense of such excuses by employing examples of application that have no relevancy to the debate. Excuses like the denial of Weapon X because Weapon X is offensive and not defensive is a red herring, used repeatedly by the administration. It doesn't even have coherent meaning in military doctrine, because all the weapons of war are used to defend on defense, and attack on offense. This "rule" is purely self-induced night sweat of very old and unreconstructed cold war liberals - individuals who were always terrified of winning but also terrified of losing.
Challenge the administration to explain the benchmarks of difference and why the difference matters, and Psaki will stumble through an attempt because she doesn't have a clue - its just a subjective consideration depending on administrations fears of taking the initiative until pressured.
Here's the issue, what makes supplying tanks (which we are finally facilitating), planes, artillery or anti-ship missiles unacceptable? How is that decided? Are we supposed to let Putin tells us what he will accept or not?
What "experts" can you quote who say that Ukraine does not need planes and tanks to fight a war? I'm not aware of any.
Nor am I, which is why I put quote marks around the word "experts" (meaning so-called). On the other hand the civilians staff "experts" surrounding Biden and the desk jockeys in the Pentagon are issuing all sorts of claims why "planes aren't needed" or "it's to complex for Ukrainians"... yada, yada, yada. Hypocritical nonsense given that all armies need these things to win. DUH! (directed at these naysayers, not you).
"WE" are not currently in any conventional war, but the last thing that came closest was the invasion of Iraq, which predates most modern drone weaponry by two decades. If we're able to target and destroy Russian tanks with drones, then what practical use does facing them with other tanks serve?
Maybe you ought to be asking that question of our own military, who do believe they are necessary... except when Ukraine needs them.
... I suspect you haven't been keeping up with events on the ground in Ukraine.
I have, and NATO military doctrine has not changed in the last 40 days. The poor tactics and badly trained troops of Russia confirm that western doctrine and tactics are far superior. And it also suggest that a robust offense could defeat Russia, However, such offenses need air cover, sams, tanks, mrls, and deep strike artillery. Without them it is unlikely that the Russians can be driven from Ukraine. A stalemate is not a substitute for victory.
We are obligated by treaties to NATO, and members of the European Union, and should only be making decisions about arming Ukraine, in multilateral conjunction with the wishes of those neighboring partners - with whom I have no doubt we are in contact every day.
So? The problem isn't that we are pressing for heavy weapons and others are stopping us, the problem is that we are one of the roadblocks in NATO to providing heavy weapons. Don't excuse the administrations feckless and irrational position by blaming others... the administration itself won't even claim that it wants Ukraine to win.
What does that tell ya, hmmmm?