While I appreciate the sentiment, I do, there are red lines that should not be tested.
I generally oppose nuclear proliferation. I must especially oppose it if I believe it to be placed in a situation for immediate use.
My mind fails to grasp any other purpose behind your suggestion. Russia is incapable of backing down, it would not have that effect. It would be a bluff that must be called... and must be used.
We are at war, and we should recognize that. We should act on it. But we should not escalate to a nuclear war.
It is really quite simple.
I don't think Russia has functioning nukes. Or functioning launchers. Both those things cost lots of money to maintain. Especially the Russian versions. Which use corrosive propellants and maintenance unfriendly designs. Top Secret mainteniance program, very expensive, difficult work, dangerious work, easier to divert that money into buying that 11th yacht. No audits, no one will ever know.
We have seen the troops who are supposed to be maintaining those things on the front lines in Ukraine serving as infantry. Think about that!
We have seen Ukraine shot down incoming hypersonics. A functioning nuke is just another hypersonic.
I believe if we give Ukraine nukes it will show Russia as the emperor with no clothes. That all the nuclear threats were empty threats.
The revelation would end the nuclear threat. Destroy the last visage of Russian glory. The last thing they cling to on Russian propaganda channels over and over. And with it, accelerate the shattering of Russia. In 10 years Russia would cease to exist, 1200 years of tyranny come to an end.
The EU/NATO could then continue its peaceful eastward expansion, picking up Ukraine, Kaliningrad, Pskov, Smolensk, Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, and etc.
(I admit, I just stuck that last part in to light grasshopper on fire)