Russian leader Vladimir Putin is increasingly reporting publicly on the "territorial achievements" of his troops, but according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a significant portion of these claims is not corroborated by open sources. As RBC-Ukraine reports, citing a fresh ISW analytical report, the Kremlin chief continues to assure the Russian audience that the full capture of Donetsk Oblast is proceeding "on schedule," while the actual pace of Russian unit advances looks far more modest. The gap between official rhetoric and geolocation and open-source data, according to US analysts, is systemic and has been documented for months across different sectors of the front.

Numbers That Don't Add Up

As a telling example, ISW cites Putin's claim that last month (August) the Russian army allegedly occupied 15 settlements in Donetsk Oblast, covering a total area of 270 square kilometers. Yet, according to the Institute's calculations based on open data, over the same period the Russians took control of only 73.14 sq km of territory in Donetsk Oblast. Looking at the entire theater of operations, Russian forces managed to entrench or capture a total of 90.35 sq km in a month — meaning that even by the overall figure, the claimed "270 squares" in Donetsk Oblast exceed the actual result across the entire front. Analysts stress that Putin has set a deadline for the total capture of Donetsk Oblast at least 15 times, and none of these deadlines has been met.

Sviatohorsk and Kozacha Lopan: The Capture Myth

Claims about specific settlements deserve particular attention. Putin stated that the Russian Northern Grouping allegedly captured Sviatohorsk. ISW notes that even at the point of maximum Russian advance in late spring to early summer, their troops were no closer than 13 kilometers from the city, meaning there was no full control over it. A similar picture with Kozacha Lopan: the loud claim of its "capture" also turned out to be false. According to the latest data, Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) continue to hold the defense in this settlement, while the presence of the occupiers is recorded on approximately 13.39% of its territory — far from full control.

The "Encirclement" at Peskovo-Radkovskoye

Another episode from the ISW report concerns Putin's claim that the Russian Western Grouping allegedly encircled 13 Ukrainian battalions — around 5,000 troops — on the eastern bank of the Osokil Reservoir near Peskovo-Radkovskoye. The Institute for the Study of War found no evidence of Russian troop presence in the claimed area, let alone any encirclement of Ukrainian forces. Thus, this "victory" too remains unconfirmed in open sources.

Contradictory Data

It is important here to honestly lay out the two versions side by side. On the one hand, the official Kremlin position, conveyed through Putin's statements, paints a picture of steady and methodical advance: dozens of settlements, hundreds of square kilometers, "encirclements" of enemy battalions and the capture of key cities like Sviatohorsk. On the other hand, independent ISW fact-checking based on open sources gives a fundamentally different picture: 73.14 sq km in Donetsk Oblast instead of the claimed 270, 90.35 sq km across the entire front, a 13-kilometer gap to Sviatohorsk, only 13.39% of Kozacha Lopan, and a complete absence of evidence for the "encirclement" at Peskovo-Radkovskoye. The difference between the two versions amounts in some cases to a discrepancy of more than threefold in area. Until independent corroboration emerges, both pictures remain in a state of contradiction, and readers should bear in mind that the Kremlin's official figures are systematically unconfirmed by open data.

Diplomatic Context

Against the backdrop of these statements, RBC-Ukraine also reports that Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the situation around Ukraine during closed-door talks. In parallel, the outlet recorded the Kremlin chief's reaction to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's decision to intensify strikes against Russia. The totality of these events shows that the public rhetoric about "territorial successes" is unfolding against a backdrop of diplomatic activity and ongoing military confrontation, where the gap between the claimed and the real remains a key theme for analysts.