Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
Iran Conflict 2026
23JUL

ISW finds no trace of Gerasimov's gains

2 min read
19:27UTC

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 kilometres⁠2. 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
Wang Yi
Wang Yi
China's foreign minister and Djibouti's issued a joint communique on 21 October saying the war should not reach the Horn of Africa and stressing free navigation through Bab al-Mandeb. The text names neither Iran nor the Houthis, and Djibouti hosts China's only overseas military base, opposite the Yemeni coast.
Ministry of External Affairs
Ministry of External Affairs
India's foreign ministry called the attacks on Saudi civilian and energy sites "unacceptable" on 22 October and said they must stop at once. An Indian died at Dammam, Indians were injured there and at Shaybah, and about 4,000 Umrah pilgrims remain stranded by one MP's count.
Iraq
Iraq
Iraq closed the al-Sheeb crossing with Iran to travellers and trucks from 21 October and said other crossings would close gradually. Unlike September's closure, which ended on a staged timetable, this one has none, and Iran's interior ministry said it received no notice.
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Egypt's president said on 21 October that Cairo's support would "defend Saudi territory, and does not include an attack on Yemen". Araghchi warned that Egyptian involvement would further complicate the situation, and Cairo's limit matches the one Ankara set on 8 October against attacking another state's soil.
UK Ministry of Defence
UK Ministry of Defence
The MoD said on 20 October that RAF Typhoons over Saudi Arabia will not strike the Houthis, but extended tanker support to Saudi operations including against Houthi targets in Yemen. The tanker line sets no limit on strikes, so British aircraft may now refuel Saudi jets on bombing runs.
Turkey
Turkey
Ankara sent the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement to parliament around 20 October, and its published text treats an attack on one party as an attack on all. Article 16 brings it into force only on the last ratification, so the 5 October invocation in Riyadh could not yet bind Turkey.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.