Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
22JUN

ISW finds no trace of Gerasimov's gains

2 min read
09:56UTC

Gerasimov presented fresh Donetsk captures on 18 July. ISW's assessment the same day reported no evidence Russian forces had entered any of the five named settlements.

ConflictAssessed
Key takeaway

Claims of settlement capture now travel faster than any evidence that the settlements changed hands.

Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia's general staff, presented fresh captures in Donetsk Oblast on 18 July. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington research group that publishes a daily geolocated assessment of the front, stated the same day that it "has observed no evidence to assess that Russian forces have entered Dobropillya, Hannivka, Oleksiyevo-Druzhkivka, Svitle, or Krasnoyarske" 1. That is an absence of corroboration rather than a contradiction: ISW did not geolocate Ukrainian control of those villages, it recorded that nothing supported the Russian claim. No Russian milblogger reported entry either, and milbloggers normally publicise gains within hours of them happening.

ISW has taken apart a named Gerasimov claim once before this year. On 21 April it examined his figure of 1,700 square kilometres and 80 settlements captured since January, including all of Luhansk Oblast and 70% of Lyman. ISW found no evidence Russia controlled any part of Lyman, and capped even the most generous Russian estimates of real advances at 715 square kilometres 2. Two dated instances make a comparison, not a habit.

Between 13 and 19 July neither army captured or lost a confirmed settlement. The static line matches what ISW assessed in early June, when it found Russia had been net-losing territory rather than gaining it . ISW reads Gerasimov's presentations as part of a Kremlin cognitive-warfare effort aimed at persuading Western audiences that Ukraine's defences are collapsing, which is the institute's own framing and should be weighed as such.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Russia's top general, Valery Gerasimov, announced new territorial gains in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region on 18 July. But the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington-based research group that tracks the war closely using satellite imagery and open-source reporting, published its own assessment the same day saying it found no evidence Russian forces had actually entered any of the towns Gerasimov named. Neither side gained or lost a confirmed settlement in the week before his announcement. This matters because it is not the first time this has happened. ISW caught Gerasimov making a similarly inflated claim in April, when it found no evidence backing his numbers either. It does not mean every Russian battlefield claim is false, but it shows a pattern worth watching whenever Moscow announces sweeping gains.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The front has held at roughly the same scale since June, when Russia was losing men at seventeen times Ukraine's daily rate for ground that barely shifted, and Russia was already net-losing territory before June. A static front with heavy attritional losses for minimal territorial return creates political pressure on Moscow to produce a battlefield narrative that outruns what is actually happening on the ground.

The pressure is compounded by domestic audience management: Russian information operations have separately substituted fabricated progress footage for real territorial gains during the same static period, indicating the narrative gap is a recurring management tool rather than a one-off claim.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    ISW's rebuttal establishes a second dated instance this year of Gerasimov's public battlefield claims outrunning verifiable evidence.

  • Precedent

    Repeated, dated rebuttals give independent monitors a track record to weigh future Gerasimov announcements against, rather than assessing each claim in isolation.

First Reported In

Update #24 · Fedorov sacked as the front stands still

Institute for the Study of War· 19 Jul 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Shipping and insurance industry
Shipping and insurance industry
UKMTO counted about 20 US-facilitated Hormuz transits a day to 11 September against only 6 visible on AIS, with traffic still around 90% below the 138-a-day pre-war baseline. War-risk underwriters cannot price hulls they cannot see, or resolve whether the tanker El Gaia hit a mine, as Iran claims, or a missile and drone, as CENTCOM says.
European refiners
European refiners
European refiners, including Poland's Orlen, absorbed a roughly $26 gap between Dated Brent at $130.80 on 15 September and ICE Brent futures settling at $103.87 on 18 September, a spread that widened from $13.45 on 9 September rather than newly opening. Their futures hedges no longer cover what they now pay for physical barrels.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Aramco zeroed European term customers' October allocations and rerouted roughly 60 million barrels to Asia through Ras Tanura and Sohar, using Red Sea and Gulf terminal capacity built years ago to cut Hormuz exposure. Riyadh reallocated existing supply rather than negotiating a shortfall with Europe.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar's energy minister Saad al-Kaabi told Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum on 20 September that Bessent's two-year Hormuz-obsolescence forecast is wrong, and that Doha has deliberately built no bypass pipeline. Qatar's gas exports run through one waterway by choice, not oversight.
Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)
Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)
Iran's foreign ministry and 130 Majlis deputies moved toward NPT withdrawal this week, with lawmaker Hossein-Ali Haji Deligani filing a triple-urgency bill on 20 September that Speaker Qalibaf has not yet scheduled. Tehran treats treaty membership as leverage still on the table, not yet spent.
Russia and China
Russia and China
Moscow and Beijing vetoed the Panel of Experts' renewal, maintaining Resolution 2231 lapsed in October 2025 and the 2025 snapback was never validly triggered, so the sanctions architecture the Panel enforces has no current legal standing. Both governments frame the veto as upholding law, not shielding Tehran.