Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking due to conflicting claims made by Russia and Ukraine regarding control of the Dnipropetrovsk region in central Ukraine. The user question raises a critical point: how can Russia claim progress in the Pokrovsk area when Ukraine reports halting dozens of Russian assaults there? This apparent contradiction prompts closer scrutiny of battlefield reports, propaganda influences, and third-party assessments.
Historical Context
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, control over eastern and southern regions such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia has remained fiercely contested. Pokrovsk, located in the Donetsk region near the border of Dnipropetrovsk, has strategic importance as a logistics hub. Both sides have previously issued conflicting updates about battlefield dynamics, often creating public confusion. Verifying territorial claims requires cross-referencing with independent analysis from military monitoring organizations and geolocated battlefield data.
Claim #1: Russia has entered the Dnipropetrovsk region for the first time
The article reports that “subunits from the Russian military’s 90th tank division reached the border of Dnipropetrovsk with the Donetsk region” and then allegedly moved into Dnipropetrovsk territory. This claim was sourced from the Russian Ministry of Defense.
This claim contradicts independent assessments. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in its June 8, 2025, report, stated that Russian forces continued offensive operations near Pokrovsk but did not make any significant territorial gains — including into Dnipropetrovsk. Additionally, Ukraine’s Khortytsia military spokesperson denied any Russian penetration into Dnipropetrovsk from either the Pokrovsk or Novopavlivka directions.
Without visual evidence, independent verification, or geolocated proof of Russian troops within the borders of Dnipropetrovsk, the claim remains unconfirmed. Until such corroboration is available, the Russian statement must be treated as unverified military propaganda.
Verdict: Insufficient evidence.
Claim #2: Ukraine halted 65 Russian assaults near Pokrovsk
The article cites Ukraine’s General Staff reporting that its forces stopped 65 “offensive” Russian actions near Pokrovsk. This is a key rebuttal to Russia’s claimed gains in the region.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine publishes daily updates on military actions, and the June 8, 2025 briefing corroborates this claim, listing numerous repelled Russian assaults specifically in the Pokrovsk direction. This assessment is also broadly aligned with ISW’s conclusions, which noted ongoing Russian offensives in the area without confirmed territorial gains.
While it’s difficult to quantify the precise number of assaults, consistent reporting across Ukrainian and independent sources supports the broader claim that Ukraine continues to repel Russia from entering deeper into the region.
Verdict: Mostly true.
Claim #3: Russia controls just under one-fifth of Ukraine
The article notes that “Russia now controls just under one-fifth of Ukrainian territory,” citing the Ukrainian analysis group Deep State. This statement aims to provide context for the war’s current territorial dynamics.
As of June 2025, independent estimates place Russian-occupied territory in Ukraine at roughly 18-19% of the country’s total land area. This includes Crimea (annexed in 2014), parts of eastern Donetsk and Luhansk, and sections of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. DeepStateMap, a well-respected Ukrainian project that uses satellite imagery and open-source intelligence, confirmed this estimate around early June 2025.
This figure is consistent with ISW and BBC reports, and while minor fluctuations occur with daily frontline changes, the general claim is supported by independent data.
Verdict: True.
Claim #4: Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine are underway but show no breakthroughs
The article reports that delegations from Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul for peace negotiations but achieved no breakthroughs. It further states the talks lasted just over an hour.
This claim is substantiated by joint coverage from Reuters and the Associated Press. Talks did occur in Istanbul on June 3, 2025, with both delegations acknowledging no forward movement. The short duration of discussions and inability to agree even to a temporary ceasefire were also verified by diplomats close to the negotiation process. Multiple foreign ministries confirmed these failed discussions in press statements the following day.
Verdict: True.
Conclusion
This article from CNN highlights legitimate battlefield updates and presents both Russian claims and Ukrainian rebuttals without asserting any unverified conclusions as fact. However, it includes a Russian Ministry of Defense statement regarding entry into Dnipropetrovsk that cannot be independently verified and contradicts Ukrainian and third-party assessments. The article responsibly notes the inability to confirm the report but could have emphasized skepticism more explicitly. The primary sources available, including ISW reports and official statements, suggest Russia has not made significant new gains into central Ukraine, especially the Dnipropetrovsk region. Overall, the article is generally accurate in its contextual details but includes an unverified claim that readers should approach with caution.
Join the Truth Movement
If you’re concerned about conflicting war reports, political spin, or rapid-fire misinformation, let DBUNK do the investigating for you. Download the DBUNK app for free or follow us on social media to request your own fact-checks and stay informed with confidence.
Link to Original Article
