By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On December 27, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence (HUR) announced the successful elimination of three senior Russian officers—Captains Dmitry Nagorny, Grigory Krokhmalyov, and Yuri Fomin—during a precision HIMARS strike targeting a command meeting in Zaporizhzhia. The operation, coordinated with the Tavria Operational Group, UAV forces, and Ukraine’s Security Service, also destroyed five Russian vehicles. Intelligence gathering and verification preceded the strike, which was followed by a drone attack on the evacuation team. This follows the reported death of another Russian officer, Salim Pashtov, on December 25.
Read the original article here
Three senior Russian officers were reportedly killed in a Ukrainian HIMARS strike in the Zaporizhzhia region. The precision of the strike, eliminating three high-ranking officers simultaneously, points to sophisticated intelligence gathering and targeting capabilities on the Ukrainian side. This successful operation highlights the ongoing effectiveness of HIMARS systems in disrupting Russian military command and control.
The reported casualties included Captain Dmitry Olegovich Nagorny, commander of the 1st battalion of the 135th motorized rifle regiment; Captain Grigory Aleksandrovich Krakhmalov, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the same regiment; and Captain Fomin Yuri Viktorovich, commander of an anti-aircraft battery within the 4th Guards Military Base. The fact that all three were captains raises some interesting questions about the use of the term “senior” in this context. Is it a direct translation issue, reflecting differences in Russian military structure, or does it indicate a significant depletion of higher-ranking officers within the Russian forces?
The significance of this strike extends beyond the loss of three officers. The targeting of battalion commanders and intelligence chiefs suggests a deliberate effort to cripple the operational effectiveness of specific units. Losing commanders disrupts chain of command, potentially leading to confusion and hindering coordinated actions. Similarly, the loss of an intelligence chief leaves a critical void in the unit’s ability to gather and act upon information. This targeted approach maximizes the impact of the strike and undermines Russian capabilities far beyond simply removing individuals.
The incident underscores a pattern observed throughout the conflict. Ukrainian forces have consistently demonstrated a capacity to target high-value Russian personnel, effectively neutralizing command and control structures. The frequency of such strikes has been substantial enough that some have suggested the Russian army is facing a steady, significant purge of its officer corps. The potential impact of this attrition on the overall effectiveness of the Russian war effort is a complex issue, prompting discussion on whether Russia’s reliance on sheer manpower and disregard for casualties negates the impact of officer losses.
The question of the precise nature of the munitions used – HIMARS rockets versus missiles – has surfaced in various discussions surrounding the event. While both are rocket-propelled, the key difference lies in their guidance systems. Missiles possess sophisticated guidance and control, enabling greater precision, while rockets follow a predetermined trajectory. The precision of the strike strongly suggests the use of guided munitions capable of such pinpoint accuracy, but the exact nature of the weaponry remains unconfirmed.
This incident also highlights the inherent vulnerabilities of Russian commanders. Their proximity to troops on the front lines, a necessity in the Russian command structure, makes them particularly susceptible to targeted attacks from long-range precision weaponry and even smaller arms, such as sniper fire and drone-assisted artillery. The practice of visibly displaying their ranks, perhaps a matter of tradition or a reflection of power dynamics, further exacerbates their exposure and makes them easier targets.
The long-term implications of these repeated losses of experienced officers are still uncertain. While Russia’s ability to replace these officers through promotions is seemingly unlimited, the question remains as to whether newly appointed officers possess the experience and capability to effectively lead and coordinate units in the face of continued Ukrainian aggression. The Russian military’s apparent disregard for casualties certainly gives the impression that they can readily absorb these losses, making it challenging to definitively assess the impact of these targeted strikes on Russia’s overall war effort. However, such repeated strikes surely create a significant burden on the Russian military, causing cascading effects throughout their operational and command structures.