List of fallen Russian commanders leaks online

Ukraine turns each Russian funeral into a war report

A major general killed by a sniper. A colonel who falls with his airborne assault regiment. A lieutenant colonel buried in Ryazan while his brigade continues fighting far from home. The list of Russian commanders confirmed killed in Ukraine has ceased to be an anomaly, becoming a daily drip. Each new name is cross-referenced with obituaries, funeral records, and social media posts by relatives. What began as a casualty list has transformed, according to forum users, into a tool for attrition: you do not need to win the war to dismantle the narrative of an invincible army, only to bury its officers one after another.

From the list of names to the accounting of attrition

The material fueling this accounting is heterogeneous. There are official confirmations, such as that of the Ryazan governor regarding Captain Yevgeny Ivanov, platoon commander of the 247th Air Assault Regiment. There are family announcements publishing obituaries before the Ministry of Defense. And there are intelligence reports, such as that attributing the death of Major General Vitaliy Gerasimov, deputy commander and chief of staff of the 41st Combined Arms Army, in Kharkiv. If the data holds, that army would have lost two deputy commanders.

The accumulated roster includes names such as Major General Andrei Sukhovetsky, allegedly killed by a sniper; Colonel Konstantin Zizevsky, commander of the 247th Air Assault Regiment; Lieutenant Colonel Denis Glebov, second-in-command of the 11th Air Assault Brigade, buried in Ryazan; Colonel Sergei Sukharev, commander of the 331st Air Assault Regiment; and Colonel Andrei Zakharov, head of the 6th Tank Regiment of the 90th Division, fallen in Brovary. The list continues.

Rank does not protect. This is the most repeated reading in analyses accompanying these obituaries: the Russian command structure concentrates decision-making in high-ranking officers, who move close to the front to unblock operations, making them profitable targets. An army that loses colonels and generals at this rate not only loses men: it loses the ability to coordinate those remaining.

Who verifies the dead and with what evidence

The vast majority of identifications come from open sources: local newspaper obituaries, funeral announcements, condolence messages on social media, and Ukrainian intelligence briefings. Each name is cross-referenced with at least one verifiable civil trace. This is the strength of the method and also its limit: there is no independent confirmation from the Russian Ministry of Defense, which has barely acknowledged high-ranking casualties.

Some argue this is war propaganda and that some names correspond to hoaxes or living officers. The objection is reasonable in the abstract, but clashes with an uncomfortable detail: obituaries are not published by the enemy, but by funeral homes and families. When the obituary appears in the newspaper of the city where the officer was born, the margin for Photoshop narrows.

The argument of internal purge and other alibis

At the opposite end of denial has appeared a more sophisticated thesis: that these deaths are not a failure, but a deliberate purge. Veteran generals, anchored in obsolete doctrines, are being replaced by young officers who understand modern warfare. Everything would be part of a superior plan. This hypothesis requires believing that a General Staff sacrifices its most experienced commanders in the midst of an invasion to renew its roster. As an economic theory, it has a fundamental problem: the replacement cost of a colonel is not measured in money, but in years.

Another line of response consists of diverting attention to the other side. Questions are raised about Ukrainian unit casualties, alleged setbacks are recalled, and it is argued that the death toll is selective. The objection has partial merit: neither side publishes a complete balance. But the asymmetry they complain about is not produced by the messenger, but by the political system that prevents Russian families from publicly mourning their dead.

What the drip of obituaries reveals

Frequency matters more than the figure. An obituary every few minutes, according to a calculation circulating among forum users based on the flow of publications on Russian social media, describes an administrative machine that can no longer conceal what is happening on the front. Funeral homes work, families post, local newspapers charge for the announcement. Censorship arrives late everywhere.

The cumulative effect on Russian public opinion is difficult to measure and likely unequal: in large cities it filters through, in small ones it is known. What can no longer be sustained is the fiction of a cost-free operation. Each obituary is a data point, and data, unlike press releases, cannot be refuted by a spokesperson.

There remains a detail that disconcerts those who trinc the list closely: several of the identified officers came from units reformed just months ago, with command staff transferred from other branches. The army that was supposed to renew itself on paper is being renewed blow by blow, obituary by obituary.