In Russian military reporting, a settlement can be “captured” before troops even enter it. Subsequently, units are forced to attack not for a real objective, but to confirm a report. In the autumn of 2024, Russian pro-war channels described precisely such a system in the Siversk direction.

At the center of the scandal was Colonel General Gennady Anashkin, commander of the “South” grouping. His dismissal was confirmed by an RBC source, who called the decision a planned rotation. Military correspondents, however, pointed to a different reason: false reports of advances and attacks without sufficient support.

A Map of Non-Existent Successes

Siversk covers the path to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. Russian forces had been trying for months to improve their positions east of the city, but confirmed advances remained limited. Official reports, however, created the impression of a steady offensive and the capture of individual settlements.

Russian military bloggers claimed that commanders transmitted a distorted picture up the chain of command. After an area was declared occupied, subordinates had to physically reach the line already drawn on the staff map. Such attacks were carried out by small groups, sometimes without proper fire support, and resulted in casualties with no noticeable outcome.

Why a False Report Kills

Distorting the situation is not a bureaucratic problem. If headquarters believes a position is occupied, it incorrectly plans supplies, artillery, reserves, and adjacent attacks. A unit receives an objective based on a fictitious starting point. The attempt to reconcile reality with the report turns into a series of assaults, the purpose of which is to protect the careers of superiors.

Reuters noted that pro-war authors accused the command near Siversk of sending inadequately supported units into deadly battles with minimal tactical effect. It is impossible to independently verify all internal reports, and the Ministry of Defense did not publish its own investigation. The convergence of reports from several war-loyal sources made the scandal unusually prominent.

Dismissal Without a Fall

After being removed from the grouping, Anashkin did not leave the system. He headed the Combined Arms Academy — an institution that trains officers and shapes approaches to command. In 2026, sources reported his appointment as Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and head of coastal troops, replacing Sukhrab Akhmedov. The official announcement from the Ministry of Defense did not appear immediately, so the status of the appointment in publications was accompanied by a caveat.

The trajectory was telling: accusations of embellishing the front, personnel dismissal, a teaching and leadership position, and a return to senior command. There was no public investigation into who signed off on the false information and how much the attempts to confirm it on the ground cost.

The Outcome

The system of false reports emerges where an unpleasant truth is more dangerous for a commander than the losses of subordinates. The superior is incentivized to report success, the next level to accept a convenient report, and the assault group to correct the discrepancy with their own lives.

Anashkin was dismissed when the conflict between the map and reality became public even within the pro-war community. But his career continued. This means that it was not the principle of command that was punished, but the reputational scandal surrounding it.