Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
3AUG

ISW finds no trace of Gerasimov's gains

2 min read
15:23UTC

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
Lloyd's Market Association
Lloyd's Market Association
War-risk underwriters price the Houthis' Red Sea attacks because the group announces its targets in advance, but the unclaimed Damietta drone gives insurers a hit with no author to price against. An attack nobody claims costs shipping more than one that is claimed, since premiums are set against a known pattern, not raw damage.
US Central Command
US Central Command
CENTCOM has announced no strike on Iran since resuming bombing on 30 July within hours of an IRGC salvo on Jordan, and centcom.mil did not respond to requests to confirm any pause. The command has gone quiet before while a larger operation was being weighed, so silence alone proves nothing about what it has or has not done.
Hengaw
Hengaw
Hengaw recorded at least 67 executions in Iran during July, of which the state acknowledged only eight, and reported the 1 August execution of protest detainee Arvin Kheirkhahan at Shahrud with no advance notice to his family. A family's first notice of a death sentence is now usually the instruction to collect a body.
Egypt
Egypt
Egypt's government asked media on 2 August to report the Damietta attack accurately, named no author, and said no findings will be published before its own investigation concludes. Cairo holds the debris and jurisdiction over an attack on its own soil, and naming a culprit now would pull it into a dispute it has avoided for five months.
Iran's Foreign Ministry
Iran's Foreign Ministry
Araghchi called the Hormuz talks with Oman final-stage on 2 August, four days after his own deputy rejected Oman's lane proposal, and denied the Damietta drone strike as an Israeli false flag while two Iranian officials privately claimed it for Tehran. Iran's public position now contradicts itself on both files at once.
Bahrain and Kuwait
Bahrain and Kuwait
Bahraini and Kuwaiti aircraft flew their own strikes on Iranian depots in July with Emirati air cover behind them, and Ynetnews reports some Gulf capitals wanted the 2 August strike to proceed rather than stop. States that have already taken fire see a closing window on Iranian weakness, not a reason to pause.