Heard about that, « genius » idea as usual.
Just to give it a benefit of a doubt, saying it's "not off the table" sounds better then saying it is off the table IMHO. If some journalist is asking you a question, it's probably not wise to state your limits of responses right off the bat even if they do exist. Like I agree with Biden and everyone that there shouldn't be a no-fly zone or troops on the ground in Ukraine and Biden said that to shore up his base so it makes political sense perhaps that he made those statements, but the advantages of stating what your not going to do to Putin in response to whatever he does in Ukraine might have
some ameliorating effect on Putin's paranoia or whatever theoretically, but your still telegraphing and offering up a literal framework of how freely Putin can operate.
Like when Putin spent much of the previous year assuring the world on not invading but then invading (the actual exact pretext being immaterial to the point here), or how the Russian government was very vague in responses as to what could happen to other countries if and when they interfered... Putin could've said he'd never use Nuclear Weapons or they are off the table if the West/NATO supplies arms to Ukraine... and he probably never would in most any conceivable scenario... but why bother saying that publicly? Instead he just says
"Whoever tries to hinder us, and even more so, to create threats to our country, to our people, should know that Russia's response will be immediate. And it will lead you to such consequences that you have never encountered in your history." He didn't add... not Nuclear Weapons tho... those are off the table.
Again, sure saying some measures are off the table might put Putin at ease or make him more comfortable, but its also giving him more liberty and comfort to operate since instead of things likely being off the table due to practicality, we decided to just come out and say it so on the off chance NATO or Biden won't aggravate his sensibilities too much.