Yes, and the UK has sent NLAW antitank grenade launchers and Germany is sending a few thousand helmets. Neither of those things, nor any of the things you mentioned are anything to do with the UK fighting Russia.
Western European states and the US are sending support of various kinds to border NATO states as (a) a sign of solidarity and (b) as a signal to Russia of precisely where the boundaries of NATO and its Art. 5 commitments lie. It's about reassurance and signalling. It's not about fighting Russia.
Sending lethal aid, non-lethal aid, and trainers is about supporting Ukraine and showing disapproval to the Russian government. It's one of the few mechanisms available to NATO, other than sanctions - and much easier than really significant sanctions because things like cutting off SWIFT (widely discussed as one sanctions option) have significant economic costs for those NATO states that have substantial economic interaction with Russia (most notably, Germany). In comparison, sending some Stingers is cheap and straightforward. But again, it doesn't imply readiness to go to war - it's a substitute for it.
If anyone is telling you that the UK is going to war in or over Ukraine, they're bullshitting you.
Russia and NATO have both understood for the whole post-Soviet period that the boundaries of NATO are the boundaries of Russia's capacity for military intervention in Europe/the post-Soviet space because they're the boundaries of the collective security provision that would pull the US into a war.
That's why Russia has used military force and other instruments to make key post-Soviet states, particularly those with Black Sea coastline that Russia regards as so strategically important, impossible to admit to NATO. It's why it nudged the foolish Georgian president Saakashvili into initiating war in South Ossetia in 2008, giving Russia an excuse to send in its 'peacekeepers', and to maintain a military presence there and in Abkhazia ever since. It's one of the main reasons why it annexed Crimea and supported/instigated the Donbas conflict in 2014 in the aftermath of Euromaidan, when the Russian government was worried that a new anti-Russian government in Ukraine might be able to push harder for NATO accession (and also because it was worried it would lose the Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol).
If you think that indicated NATO's willingness to go to war in Ukraine, you've misunderstood them. He said very clearly that "we will take all necessary measures to defend and protect allies". Allies are members of NATO and are under the Art. 5 umbrella (which he made a point of mentioning). Ukraine is not an ally, it's a partner - a distinction you can see he's careful to make in his remarks. Partners do not have that same Art. 5 protection. He makes it clear that the increased NATO military presence in the Black Sea is for two purposes: monitoring and reassuring the region's NATO members. All this is as clear a diplomatic signal as you can get that NATO is not going to war in Ukraine - and, obviously, that's being done deliberately.