October 17, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Russia claims that drone incursions over Northern Europe were carried out by NATO (Oct 16)

Institute for the Study of War

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone on October 16. Trump stated that the two leaders had a “very productive” call and that the two largely discussed potential bilateral economic prospects to pursue after a resolution to the war in Ukraine.[1] Trump stated that the two agreed that there will be a high-level advisor meeting at an unspecified date next week (between October 19 and 25) and an unspecified location with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio leading the US delegation. Trump stated that he and Putin will then meet in Budapest to discuss a resolution to the war. Trump noted that he will discuss the contents of his October 16 phone call with Putin with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during Zelensky’s visit to Washington on October 17. Trump told reporters on October 16 that he will be meeting with Putin in “two weeks or so” and that Rubio will be meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “pretty soon.”[2] Trump suggested that he, Zelensky, and Putin may coordinate “separate but equal” meetings.[3] Trump stated that Putin “really did not like the idea” of the United States sending “a couple thousand Tomahawks” to Ukraine when Trump raised the question.[4]  

Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov attempted to obfuscate Russia’s deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in his statement on the October 16 Trump-Putin call. Ushakov claimed that the Trump-Putin call discussed how Ukrainian forces are allegedly using “terrorist methods” to strike civilian and energy infrastructure in Russia since Russia maintains the strategic initiative on the battlefield.[5] Ushakov claimed that the Ukrainian strikes are “forcing” Russia to respond “accordingly.” Ukraine’s recent long-range strike campaign is targeting Russia’s energy sector in order to degrade Russia’s capacity to fund its war against Ukraine and to fuel its fighting forces.[6] Russian forces, in contrast, have been deliberately targeting Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure, including by conducting first-person view (FPV) drone strikes systematically targeting civilians in Kherson Oblast since late 2023, long predating Ukraine’s recent long-range strike campaign against Russian energy.[7] Open-source investigative outlet Tochnyi reported on September 28 that Russian drone strikes have resulted in 2,877 Ukrainian civilian casualties in Kherson City alone since 2023.[8]

Ushakov also claimed that US Tomahawk sales to Ukraine would not affect the battlefield situation and would “significantly damage” bilateral US-Russia relations.[9] Ushakov’s claims are a continuation of the Kremlin’s reflexive control campaign to deter US sales of Tomahawks to Ukraine.[10] ISW continues to assess that the US deliveries of Tomahawk missiles would not lead to a significant escalation in Russia’s war against Ukraine, given Russia’s own frequent use of comparable long-range cruise missiles against Ukraine but could make a notable contribution to Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself, as ISW has noted.[11]

Russia is intentionally muddying the information space with false flag claims and information operations in an attempt to generate cover for overt and covert attacks against Europe in the past several years, including the recent Russian drone incursions into NATO airspace. Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Head Alexander Bortnikov on October 16 falsely accused the United Kingdom (UK) of fueling “hysteria” about the threat Russia poses to Europe and claimed that “NATO intelligence services” participated in the recent drone incursions over European countries that Russia actually conducted.[12] Bortnikov accused the UK of trying to establish a naval blockade of Kaliningrad Oblast and the Baltic Sea and attempted to discredit recent UK sanctions against the Russian oil industry and shadow fleet as part of the alleged “blockade” campaign.[13] Bortnikov also accused the UK of planning sabotage operations with Ukrainian special services against the TurkStream pipeline and Russian critical infrastructure.[14] Bortnikov’s accusations against the UK follow an October 6 claim by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) that the UK is planning for a group of pro-Ukrainian Russians fighting for Ukraine to conduct an attack on a Ukrainian Navy ship or a foreign civilian vessel in a European port.[15] The SVR has been releasing similar claims more frequently in recent weeks, constituting a new concerted pattern of activity that is likely part of Russia’s “Phase Zero” informational and psychological condition setting phase for a higher level of NATO-Russia conflict.[16] The FSB and SVR are likely engaged in a cognitive warfare campaign aimed at sowing confusion among the European population and the international community about the actor responsible for a variety of overt and covert attacks against NATO states, such as sabotage missions, electronic warfare (EW) interference, GPS jamming, drone incursions, and arson. Officials from several European states have identified Russia as responsible for many of these attacks, including many of the drone incursions into European airspace in the past few weeks.[17] The European Parliament also passed a resolution on October 9 identifying Russia as responsible for many of the recent “escalatory actions” and deliberate drone incursions.[18]

Russian forces are reportedly adapting their long-range drone and missile strike tactics targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure in an attempt to disrupt the Ukrainian power system on a large scale. Ukrainian outlet Ukrainska Pravda reported on October 16 that Russia relied on “carpet bombing” in Winter 2022-2023, striking various targets throughout Ukraine with a high quantity of drones and missiles, but is now using “piecemeal” tactics to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure oblast by oblast.[22] Ukrainska Pravda stated that Russian forces are targeting frontline and border areas, conducting localized strikes against Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts while also regularly but less intensely striking Kharkiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. Russia is reportedly trying to destroy both local energy generation capabilities and delivery and distribution systems by attacking substations. Ukrainska Pravda reported that Russian forces primarily used drones for these purposes in August and September 2025, launching 10 to 40 drones against one target in a single wave. Russian forces are reportedly now deploying a series of waves with several drones every hour and then subsequently conducting massive missile strikes. Ukrainska Pravda stated that Russia aims to create a blackout in Ukraine by creating a power deficit in eastern Ukraine, where consumption is typically higher and where Russian forces have destroyed almost all local generation capabilities, while gradually stopping the flow of electricity from west to east. One source told Ukrainska Pravda that the number of drones Russia is launching against each target is making defense difficult and that a single precise hit is enough to disable a power plant’s power unit. A manager of a Ukrainian energy company reportedly stated that Russia also aims to disrupt Ukraine’s gas sector such that Ukraine cannot reliably supply fuel to generate electricity and heat.

Recent Russian drone technological adaptations are likely facilitating Russia’s strike campaign against Ukraine’s energy sector. Russian sources recently published footage of a Russian strike in Chernihiv Oblast with an MS variant of the Shahed drone, which reportedly includes a thermal imaging camera and video stream and has a range of up to 200 kilometers.[23] Russia is also reportedly using thermobaric warheads on its Shahed drones, allowing Russian strikes to destroy facilities even in hardened shelters like the ones Ukraine is installing to protect energy facilities.[24] Russian strikes targeting power infrastructure in frontline areas, particularly Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts, may aim to achieve some battlefield effects by forcing Ukrainian forces operating in the area to rely on generators, creating vulnerabilities to further Russian strikes. Generators require large and reliable supplies of fuel, and Russia’s widespread campaign to strike Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) could inhibit Ukraine’s ability to rely on generators at scale near the line of contact.[25]

Key Takeaways

  1. US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone on October 16.
  2. Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov attempted to obfuscate Russia’s deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in his statement on the October 16 Trump-Putin call.
  3. Russia is intentionally muddying the information space with false flag claims and information operations in an attempt to generate cover for overt and covert attacks against Europe in the past several years, including the recent Russian drone incursions into NATO airspace.
  4. Russian forces are reportedly using North Korean forces operating in Russia in ways that will allow North Korean forces to take battlefield lessons learned back to North Korea.
  5. Russian forces are reportedly adapting their long-range drone and missile strike tactics targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure in an attempt to disrupt the Ukrainian power system on a large scale.
  6. Ukraine’s European partners announced new military assistance for Ukraine at the October 15 Ukraine Defense Contact Group (the Ramstein Format) meeting.
  7. Russian forces advanced near Velykomykhailivka and in eastern Zaporizhia Oblast.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.