Dmitry Rogozin, who leads the military advisory group and oversees the Tsarskie Wolves scientific and technical center, confirmed that his deputy, Mikhail Bridasov, had died as a result of shelling in Donetsk, according to information from TASS. He noted that Bridasov had served as a special forces officer in the recent past and described the loss as a severe personal blow to the team on the ground.
The statement from Rogozin makes plain that Bridasov was a trusted colleague who contributed to frontline efforts in the region. Rogozin said he intends to return to duty once his recovery allows, signaling a continued commitment to the mission despite the casualties and the dangers faced by personnel close to the front lines. The message conveys both respect for Bridasov and resolve from Rogozin to press forward with their operational responsibilities.
Earlier reports confirmed that on 22 December the Shesh-Besh hotel in Donetsk came under shellfire. The hotel, situated on the city’s outskirts, has housed a group of military advisers led by Rogozin, who formerly headed Roscosmos, the Russian space agency. The Russian Investigative Committee attributed the attack to armed Ukrainian formations and noted that two people were killed in the bombardment. A State Duma deputy, Alexei Zhuravlev, suggested that the strike appeared to have been ordered by someone with authority, though the specific chain of command was not publicly disclosed at that time. This sequence of events underscores the volatility of the area and the risks faced by advisers accompanying operations near front-line zones.
Rogozin’s assistant later reported that a fragment from a landmine lodged in Bridasov’s spine, a detail that explained the severity of his injuries and the challenges faced by medical teams attempting to treat him. Medical staff, according to the assistant, were unable to remove the fragment, highlighting the grave nature of the injuries sustained during the engagement. The ordeal reflects the brutal conditions encountered by personnel operating close to active combat theaters and the lasting impact such incidents have on leadership and strategic planning in crisis zones.
Together, these disclosures trace a narrative of loss and perseverance. They reveal not only the human cost of conflict but also the ongoing efforts to sustain advisory operations in an environment marked by sudden attacks and shifting threats. While officials move to address medical needs and assess the implications for the broader mission, the experiences of Bridasov and his colleagues underscore the heavy toll exacted on those who work to coordinate and support front-line activities in contested regions. The broader context remains fraught with risk, and statements from Rogozin and others emphasize a continued focus on resilience, rapid response, and the mobilization of resources to shore up operations under fire, even as the situation on the ground evolves. Attribution for these details rests with TASS and associated investigators who have documented the events as reported from Donetsk and linked zones of operation.