>

Two things can be true at the same time
I think it's important that we don't commit the same folly that the Russians did when they invaded, forcing the facts to fit their narrative and refusing to believe their opponents could learn and change accordingly.  
As example, the Russians managed to retreat from Kherson across a major river quietly and competently.  They still have a pro core of troops, plenty of equipment, and lots and lots of artillery.
So while sending 100 western tanks and 50 Bradleys is great and all, Ukraine is a big place and those numbers need to go up by a LOT.  The US has 2,000 Bradleys sitting in deep reserve just waiting to be decommissioned, I'd like to see us donate 500-1000 of them.  THAT would be a game changer. >

I don’t think the Ukrainians would mind let alone be threathened by Russians retreating too swiftly and efficiently. >

They definitely would be.  This is actually the biggest problem for Ukraine since the war started.  Russia has shown the ability to absorb lots of losses and keep fighting.  Add in that Russia has nukes making their troops and equipment nigh invulnerable on Russian territory.  
Ukraine has already beaten Russia, but they'll have to do it again with this new offensive.  And who knows how many times after that?  And each time at the cost of blood.  
The only reason Ukraine hasn't given up already is that if they lose they face genocide.  They are in dire straits. >

Thanks but I fail to see how retreating is the problem, because isn’t that how the war will ultimately end? >

The problem is not retreating, it's retreating competently. It wasn't a total debacle. This means they are still very much capable of being organised, and if they can retreat swiftly, then they can probably do the same in offensive too. Would it be efficient? Not necessarily. Would it be deadly? Absolutely. And Ukraine cannot afford to lose as many people as Russia can, unfortunately. >

When they get those M1 Bradley fighting vehicle's, it's going to be a game changer, watching the videos on those bad asses it's pretty impressive >

The whole NATO package of strykers, Bradley’s, CV-90s and Marders is really what will change the game. They are getting more strykers than Bradley’s >

To me the M1 Bradley and it's 2 tow missiles system it is going to absolutely annihilate what is left of Russian armor. The fact that they can roll up into a spot and launch those bad boys after 3 miles give or take it's going to be a bad day for somebod. >

I'm not here to say the M1 is bad, but Russian armor also uses ATGMs too, and it fucks Bradleys just as hard as the other way around. Don't get me wrong they are great vehicles, but ATGMs are still lethal to many tanks, much less IFVs >

Rumors that Reznikov is stepping down as the defense minister and will be taking the role of justice minister. The current head of intelligence will be taking over as minister of defense. I hope this doesn't impact the chain of command and Ukraine's ability to push back the Russians. >

So where is this offensive headed, surely they are not considering attacking Kyiv again, not after how it went last time? >

My guess a concerted effort in the east, battle of the bulge style, since Russia previously lessened it's (for now) objectives to the 4 eastern/southern regions. Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson >

Deeply motivated defenders against poorly trained invaders. I'm sure the Ukrainians will put all given equipment to good use. >

I don’t think you can be too prepared for situations like this, so I hope countries are sending what they can as soon as they can.
Sensor fuzed weapons and other cluster munitions seem well suited to blunt an offensive along the northern border. >

Member during Iraqi freedom when they had to tell the news to chill tf out with shit they're saying bc literally ANYONE with internet could see it?
Yeah, let's try that again. Maybe save the surprise for idk...when they show up so they don't coordinate a whole other level of shit. >

The article is quoting the Ukrainian Minister of Defence. If they were concerned about Russians having this information they wouldn’t be holding a press conference.