"Don't call Russians military. They are just a horde of bad people" — military expert John Spencer

When Ukraine launched a surprise successful operation in Kharkiv Oblast, John Spencer, an urban warfare expert, called it "the greatest counteroffensive in modern history."

Spencer served in the U.S. Army for over 25 years and is a retired major with combat experience in Iraq. He has extensive experience in the Strategic Studies Group of the U.S. Defense Department, worked at the elite U.S. military academy West Point and the Pentagon, and taught and researched military affairs at the United States Military Academy. He is the author of the "Mini-Manual for the Urban Defender". He closely follows the war in Ukraine and believes that urban defense plays a key role.

In June, Major Spencer came to Kyiv to see with his own eyes how a small Ukrainian army was able to stop the offensive of the second largest in the world.

hromadske spoke to John Spencer, a retired U.S. Army Major and the chair of Urban Warfare Studies with the Madison Policy Forum, about how the battles for the cities have influenced the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war and how and when it may end.

"I think Kherson will be liberated very soon"

You praised the Kharkiv counteroffensive. Why do you think it was successful? 

I think it's so successful just because the Ukrainian military is a better military. There are military reasons about having better intelligence, having better speed ability to move faster but really, you have to give the credit to Ukrainian soldiers who are just better at discipline about initiative. In the military, we say that a unit that can understand what they're fighting for and understand what the mission is, they'll do great things on the battlefield. But clearly, this was a massive operation that was coordinated at the General Staff through a lot of work, but it was the actual ground soldier that accomplishes such great things.

Some military analysts attributed this success to a disinformation campaign. The Russians expected the counteroffensive in the south as the Ukrainian officials announced and didn’t prepare themselves to defend Kharkiv Oblast. Is it only about misguiding the Russians? Could you talk a little bit more about the tactical level as well?

Sure. Deception is always important in war. For 1000s of years, some of these things never change. Some people are trying to say that the offensive in Kherson was a feint. I personally don't think so. The offensive out Kherson is a real major offensive to deliberate Kherson from Russian occupiers. And it's been going on for weeks and weeks with the use of long-range munitions to take out bridges, to hit Russia and ammunition supplies, even striking capabilities in Russian-occupied Crimea.

The Russians had to respond to that offensive but what they did was they rushed everything they could and left themselves vulnerable in the Kharkiv offensive. Now, only the Ukrainian General staff could tell you whether that was the plan. To me, it doesn't really matter. It was the fact that Russia left itself very vulnerable. And the Ukrainians had the superior capability to identify that they were extremely vulnerable on that front. And to push, not just a little bit, but hundreds of kilometers because the Russians left such weak forces who didn't fight. And I actually think that surprised even the Ukrainians that the Russians didn't even try to fight, they just ran. Russians made a bad decision. Ukraine responded: either they planned it that way, or they just responded quicker and took advantage of that. And now they have so many Russian weapons that they've captured, and they've liberated so many of the villages and have dealt Russia a massive blow to their ability to continue to stay in Ukraine.

How can the Ukrainian military use this success furthermore? What’s next?

I think Ukraine is using this to their success. But there's a lot of work to be done even in the new areas that have been re-occupied. We're discovering all the horrors that happen when Russians occupied Ukrainian land and what they do to the civilians, into the infrastructure. Ukraine will reestablish its lines and continue to push the offense there. I don't think this war goes for years. I think this war goes for months.

Ukraine will have to reestablish its lines, resupply the soldiers, and get ready for the next operation. As they continue to fill out this, I think Kherson will be liberated very soon.

They, as I had to make sure, can keep the gains they’ve had because Russia will respond. But Russia's days are numbered. They don't have anything else of substance they can send to Ukraine. I mean, they're asking North Korea for artillery rounds and asking Iran for drones. They are desperate. But they are still dangerous. So Ukraine has to be very careful about their next steps to this ultimate victory.

What if they mobilize troops in Russia?*

That is a big question for military analysts if Russia calls for a national mobilization. Most of us believe that's just not possible. One is the embarrassment that it would cause Russia if they call for a national mobilization and the men don't show up, because they're already having problems just filling their normal conscript numbers. It would also go against their entire messaging about the special military operation in Ukraine. To mobilize the entire country, they would have to say this is a threat against Russia. It's not, this is about defending Ukraine and Ukraine will stop at Ukraine’s sovereign line. So there are lots of reasons why they can't or why they won't. So I think it's highly unlikely. But let's say they did, and this is what they're doing. They're taking people who have no training, they're taking prisoners out of prisons, and sending them to the frontlines to die. So if Russia wants to send more soldiers to the frontlines to die for a cause it's not theirs, then go ahead. I don't think that'll change the ultimate victory for Ukraine.

You mentioned weapons. Do you think Ukraine can win this war without long-range missiles if they won't be provided?

There's definitely a variety of long-range missiles. Can Ukraine win this war without some of the longer-range missiles that they've asked for? Yes, absolutely, they can. But if the Western world, the Free World wants the war in Ukraine to end faster, [...] then they would provide Ukraine with all the weapons that are necessary, like the long-range weapons that can shoot over 300 kilometers and more vehicles and all that.

Why does the U.S. hesitate to provide it?

I don't have an insider view to the political negotiations. Every country that provides aid is a risk decision on the idea of escalating the situation in the geopolitical row. So I'm not privy to that. Maybe it's a concern since Russia said if you provide this that will escalate the war. But that's a bully, you know, rattling his nuclear saber. I think that's a form of appeasement not to provide Ukraine with those weapons. There's one argument about it would give Ukraine the ability to hit targets inside of Russia and escalate to a greater war in Europe. I think that's just a silly argument because Ukraine can range Russia from the Kharkiv region with mortar rounds. That's just a silly argument, and really, I think, a form of appeasement to Putin not to anger him, or not to allow him to escalate it. This has always been about Ukraine, defending its land with its soldiers. And all they've asked for is the weapons. And they've shown that they will use those weapons responsibly because they have weapons that reach really far out that they could reach Russia. And they're not the ones attacking civilian locations, hospitals, nurseries, theaters. So I fully support giving Ukraine any weapon it needs, and it won't escalate the war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin watches the Vostok 2022 military exercise in Russia's Far East, September 6, 2022. Photo: Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

"Russians use war crimes as a form of warfare"

Let's talk about urban warfare. How has this war contributed to the understanding of urban warfare?

I think this war has proved what many have known is that war is about urban areas. Every battle that's happened in Ukraine since day one since the Battle of Kyiv, Sumy and Kharkiv has been about Russia's interest in grabbing urban terrain because urban terrain is the economic engine of nations. Urban areas are the logistical hubs for maneuvering supplies around the country. I say that all roads lead to urban. Ukraine has shown the world that militaries must be able to defend urban terrain and also conduct operations to liberate urban terrain from enemy occupiers. And in this war, specifically, is that sometimes it isn't always about destroying an enemy as it is about protecting and fighting for control of cities which make up a country, share the root with civilizations, they are the people. So the different battles for Ukrainian cities have shown at the strategic, operational, and tactical level that it's very important for militaries to be able to fight in, for, and defend urban terrain.

Could you speak more about different approaches? I mean how different are Russia's and Ukraine’s approaches when it comes to defending urban areas?

There are some differences here because Ukraine is fighting a just war and using all the laws of armed conflict, and following all the rules on how to conduct the warfare. Russia wants a war of attrition, Russia wants the Ukrainian military to come out and fight them on the field of battle, so they can be blown up with artillery. Russia wants to seize the urban terrain, so they can destroy, loot, take all the resources, and control the urban terrain. The difference in the way they fight for it, though, is that Russia, like in battles such as Mariupol and Severodonetsk, will not follow the laws of armed conflict about how to use, how to fight an urban terrain about protecting civilians, protecting civilian objects and protected locations, they will literally just conduct bombings in front of their forces as they try to maneuver for, where Ukraine has shown 100% whether they're defending or they're trying to liberate urban terrain, they're all only fire at military targets. When Russia takes a piece of urban terrain, it's usually 80 to 100% destroyed. So it's nothing left. So it doesn't liberate anything. It literally destroys everything.

Would it be fair to say that the Russian strategy hasn't changed since World War II? As an expert, could you compare, for example, the Battle of Berlin and the siege of Mariupol? Does Russia use still the same strategy?

There are some differences. Russia decided to build its military in a certain way but absolutely, there are still practices that are left over from how they treat their soldiers, how they educate their soldiers, which then reflects into the way they fight. Their system is just weaker, and they put soldiers into a foreign country and they do bad things. But the laws of war have also changed since World War II, things like ‘never again’ that should have meaning to everybody in the world.

There are some similarities to the Battle of Berlin or even the battles in Chechnya and Grozny where they are fully willing to destroy everything, rather than fight the enemy in the urban terrain, which is legitimately by definition a war crime, where they're not distinguishing between military targets and civilians. They actually use war crimes as a form of warfare. And I personally believe on purpose. But they actually fight more like the Nazis than they did do the Soviets in World War II, in their use of genocidal practices purposely causing humanitarian crisis is just to give them advantages. But as a military guy, it makes me angry to even call them a military. They're not really a military. They're just a horde of bad people doing bad things. A military'll operate with a code with an ethical framework, it fights for its nation under its nation's values. What Russia has sent into Ukraine is just a horde of bad people.

Some military experts say that Ukrainian small units are better trained for close combat when it comes to urban terrain. Do you agree with this? 

100%. So all fighting is at that small unit level, that's where the battles are won or lost. And it starts with the framework of how you built your military before you even started training it, that they're fighting for a just cause. They're a cohesive group, they trust their leaders at all levels. And then that translates to being trained to fight as a group on the specifics of urban warfare, which are unique. But everything I'm seeing is that Ukrainian is a better lead, a better motivated, and a better-trained military at both the small unit level, but even at the large-scale level if you look at operations happening now for urban areas. It isn't that Ukraine is just surrounding urban areas and then going in and attacking. They're fighting smarter. They're outthinking Russian forces, even at the lowest level. And that can only be done because the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian president, everybody trusts the soldiers.

Why did Russian fail to capture Kyiv and succeeded in Mariupol?

Each urban battle is different. The terrain is different. The military situation is different in their capabilities. I went to Kyiv in June and toured all the locations Bucha, Ipin, Brovary, Ivankiv to understand how a small Ukrainian force defeated Russia in the Battle of Kiv and saved Ukraine because if Kyiv would have fallen, yes, the Ukrainians would never stop fighting, but the Russians would be in the capital.

The difference with Mariupol is that the Russians had the capability to send more and more forces into the area. So at one point, they had 20,000 Russians going against the brave Mariupol defenders, but they still held out for 80+ days, and it's literally an amazing historical battle. But the terrain was very different. In Kyiv with its such a big area, the Russians sent such a small force. And once they were defeated in the Hostomel airport, they couldn't get more forces in there quickly without being attacked as they were moving into positions. In Mariupol, they were coming out of secure areas, they were able to maneuver more forces. And Ukraine was able to drop the bridges, raise the rivers, and the Ukrainian civilians were able to support the Ukrainian military and Ukraine was able to resupply and other units were to be able to get there, like the airborne and the other divisions. So there're lots of differences, but the bravery of the Ukrainian people will highlight in both battles. And I think the battle of Kyiv was the greatest military defeat of modern history because Russia was not able to achieve its goal of removing the Ukrainian government from the capital.

Russian military equipment moving along a road near Mariupol, April 18, 2022. Photo: AP Photo / Alexei Alexandrov

Military books would say that an attacking force should outnumber defendants at the tactical level by a ratio of 1:3. I mean, it's a basic rule. Why didn’t they follow it?

That basic rule is really for open terrain. And as an urban warfare guy, those ratios changed, you need 5:1. And that's what eventually we saw in Mariupol, right? They had 20,000 to 3000, so they actually achieved the ratio. Why didn't they do that in  Kyiv? I think it is because they thought that the Ukrainian people and the military would not fight. They thought they could rapidly get into the capital, and they didn't have to surround it and clear it. And maybe they thought they wouldn't even fight, they would just drive in and like a military prey, which is ironical, what happened in the first battle of Grozny: they thought they would just drive in and nobody would fight. But what they found is they weren't welcomed with flowers are welcomed with bullets and RPGs and just a stiff resistance. Their entire plan was backed by faulty intelligence about the Ukrainian people, even their military. I mean, there were just so many errors that were made, but from an urban warfare perspective, they didn't bring the right formations, and they weren't prepared for the fight.

And finally, how this war will end?

Without question, this war will end in Ukrainian victory, all of all sovereign Ukrainian land being liberated, and the Russian military being back in Russia. It ends with a stronger Ukraine that's ever existed in history. The Ukrainian people, as a whole, have shown the world that they will be free and that they are strong, they're willing to fight for their freedom. It's an amazing world story. NATO will be stronger than it's ever been since it was created because of Ukraine because we understand Russia is a threat to the world. But this ends in a complete Ukrainian victory.

*The interview with the expert took place a few days before Putin announced partial mobilization in Russia.