January 30, 2026

Institute for the Study of War: Trump appeals to Putin to halt attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure through Feb. 1

Institute for the Study of War

The Kremlin disagreed with the US position that territorial control of Donetsk Oblast remains the only unresolved issue at the US-Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on January 28 that the United States, Ukraine, and Russia have narrowed peace negotiations to only “one central issue,” which concerns Donetsk Oblast.[1] Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov, who is often the sole Kremlin official to comment on US-Russian talks in recent months, disagreed with Rubio’s characterization of the peace process during a Russian state TV interview on January 29.[2] Ushakov also stated during an interview with another state TV channel that territorial issues are the “most important” but that “many other issues remain” on the agenda.[3] Ushakov’s comments to Russian state TV channels suggest that the Kremlin is continuing to set domestic information conditions, likely in an effort to justify Russia’s refusal to make concessions for a negotiated peace settlement.

The Kremlin acknowledged and reportedly agreed to US President Donald Trump’s request for a temporary moratorium on striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov acknowledged on January 30 that Trump made a “personal request” to Russian President Vladimir Putin to refrain from striking Kyiv until February 1 and confirmed that the Kremlin agreed to Trump’s request.[4] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on January 30 that Russian forces did not conduct strikes against energy facilities in Ukraine on the night of January 29 to 30 but that Russian forces did strike energy infrastructure in several oblasts during the day on January 29.[5] Zelensky noted that Russian forces are now instead targeting Ukrainian logistics. Several Duma deputies insisted that the strikes moratorium is not a major Russian concession and indicated that Russian forces will not cease hostilities.[6] Prominent Russian milbloggers complained that the ceasefire does not support Russia and questioned Russian officials’ hesitation to comment on earlier ceasefire reports.[7] ISW continues to assess that the reported moratorium on energy strikes does not mark a significant Russian condescension as the Kremlin has been consistently rejecting a long-term ceasefire, including on January 29.[8]

Russian forces continue to execute Ukrainian prisoners-of-war (POW) on the battlefield in violation of international law. The servicemember of a Ukrainian border unit reported on January 25 that elements of the Russian Senezh Spetsnaz Center (formerly subordinated to the Russian General Staff’s Main Directorate [GRU] and now directly subordinated to the Russian General Staff) executed multiple Ukrainian border guards who had surrendered to the Russian forces during a cross-border attack in Chernihiv Oblast in December 2025.[9] Russian forces have sharply increased extrajudicial executions of Ukrainian prisoners-of-war (POWs) on the frontline since late 2024 in violation of international law, particularly in areas of heavy combat.[10] ISW continues to assess that the Russian military command is endorsing and sometimes ordering war crimes on the battlefield and that Russia is torturing and abusing Ukrainian civilian prisoners as part of the wider military modus operandi.[11]

Key Takeaways

  1. The Kremlin disagreed with the US position that territorial control of Donetsk Oblast remains the only unresolved issue at the US-Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations.
  2. The Kremlin acknowledged and reportedly agreed to US President Donald Trump’s request for a temporary moratorium on striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
  3. Russian forces continue to execute Ukrainian prisoners-of-war (POW) on the battlefield in violation of international law.
  4. Russian forces recently advanced near Lyman, in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area, and in western 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.