October 26, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: amid nuclear saber-rattling, no sign Russia seeks cease-fire

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov continue to make exaggerated claims of battlefield victories while demonstrating that the Kremlin remains committed to seizing the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts. Putin held a meeting on October 26 with Gerasimov and the commanders of the Russian groupings of forces.[1] Putin notably wore a military uniform for the meeting, only the third time he has worn a uniform to a public event since the start of the full-scale invasion, and only a few weeks after the second time he did so on September 16.[2] Gerasimov opened his report to Putin by stating that Russian forces continue to carry out tasks to seize Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts. Gerasimov’s statement reiterates Putin’s longstanding demand that Ukraine hand over the entirety of the four illegally annexed regions to Russia while undermining recent Russian offers to exchange territory in southern Ukraine for full control over Donetsk Oblast.[3] Gerasimov claimed – very likely falsely – that Russian forces have surrounded up to 5,500 Ukrainian troops in the Pokrovsk direction and blocked a group of 31 Ukrainian battalions near Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk). Gerasimov claimed that elements of the Russian 2nd Combined Arms Army (CAA, Central Military District [CMD]) and 51st CAA (formerly 1st Donetsk People’s Republic Army Corps [DNR AC], Southern Military District [SMD]) are advancing along converging axes and have completed the encirclement of Ukrainian forces in the area. Gerasimov claimed that Russia’s efforts to isolate the combat zone to disrupt Ukrainian supplies facilitated the alleged encirclement, a reference to Russian efforts in recent months to use adaptations to drone tactics and technology to conduct strikes against Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs).[4] Gerasimov claimed that Russian authorities have tasked the Central Grouping of Forces with destroying the allegedly encircled Ukrainian forces near Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad.

Gerasimov similarly claimed that the Russian Western Grouping of Forces have encircled Kupyansk after assault detachments of the 68th Motorized Rifle Division (6th CAA, Leningrad Military District [LMD]) conducted a flanking maneuver, seized crossings over the Oskil River south of Kupyansk, and worked with elements of the 47th Tank Division and 27th Motorized Rifle Brigade (both of the 1st Guards Tank Army [GTA], Moscow Military District [MMD]) to block Ukrainian forces on the east (left) bank of the Oskil River east of Kupyansk.[5] Gerasimov claimed that Russian forces have encircled a total of 18 Ukrainian battalions in Kupyansk. Putin similarly falsely claimed in October 2024 that Russian forces encircled 2,000 Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast and later claimed in March 2025 that Russian forces had “isolated” Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast and that it was “impossible” for small groups of Ukrainian forces to withdraw from positions in Kursk Oblast.[6] Russian forces did not encircle significant numbers of Ukrainian forces during the Russian operations to retake Kursk Oblast in late 2024 and early 2025, despite Putin’s claims.

Gerasimov also claimed that Russian forces have advanced in southern Vovchansk (northeast of Kharkiv City) and seized over 70 percent of the town.[7] Gerasimov claimed that Russian forces are completing the seizure of Yampil (southeast of Lyman) and have seized Dronivka (northwest of Siversk) and Pleshchiivka (southeast of Kostyantynivka). Gerasimov claimed that Russian forces continue urban combat in Siversk and Kostyantynivka.

Russian milbloggers widely denied Gerasimov’s claims. Several milbloggers claimed that Gerasimov was lying and that Russian forces had not encircled Ukrainian forces in Kupyansk and Pokrovsk.[8] One milblogger stated that there is still a multi-kilometer corridor between Russian groups operating west and north of Pokrovsk, and another noted that Russian fire control over Ukrainian GLOCs does not mean that Russian forces have encircled Ukrainian forces in the area.[9] Milbloggers pointed to the porous nature of the front, highlighting the way Russian forces are infiltrating into Ukrainian flanks and rear.[10] One milblogger noted that Ukrainian forces often maintain positions in settlements that Russian sources claim that Russian forces have seized and stated that Pokrovsk and Kupyansk are “100 percent chaos.”[11] Another milblogger assessed that Gerasimov is “getting ahead of himself again” and expects reality on the ground to “soon catch up with his reports.”[12] The milblogger assessed that Gerasimov’s report aims to provoke US President Donald Trump to “request mercy” for the encircled Ukrainian forces and to give Trump the impression of serious Ukrainian problems on the front, as the milblogger assessed Putin’s claims about encircled Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast in March 2025 aimed to do. Gerasimov similarly presented exaggerated territorial claims in late August 2025, including about Kupyansk, that Russian milbloggers heavily criticized.[13]

ISW has not observed evidence to support Gerasimov’s claims. ISW has only observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have seized roughly 23 percent of Vovchansk. ISW has only observed footage from October 24 showing limited Russian forces operating in eastern Kostyantynivka after a likely infiltration mission and has not observed evidence of Russian forces operating within Siversk.[14] The Kremlin is also portraying the seizures of small settlements that are not operationally significant as major successes for informational effects. Dronivka is under six square kilometers in size, and Pleshchiivka is under four square kilometers. Both had a pre-war population of about 600 people.

Russia continues to issue explicit nuclear threats as part of a multi-pronged effort seeking to deter continued US pressure on Russia and support for Ukraine. Putin recalled on October 26 the recent annual recurring Russian Grom exercises with all three components of Russia’s strategic nuclear triad.[24] Putin emphasized the “reliability of Russia’s nuclear shield” and claimed that Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces “exceed” the abilities of all other nuclear states. Putin claimed that Russia’s nuclear strategic forces are capable of “fully ensuring” the national security of Russia and the Union State (the political union between Belarus and Russia that a Kremlin-dominated federated government rules as a single polity). Putin and Gerasimov also discussed a test of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, which Putin claimed has an “unlimited” range and which Gerasimov claimed has “guaranteed accuracy against highly protected targets at any distance.” Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO and key Kremlin negotiator Kirill Dmitriev claimed that he relayed information about the Burevestnik tests to US officials.[25] Putin’s and Gerasimov’s claims are only the latest in Russia’s ongoing nuclear saber-rattling campaign, and Dmitriev notably issued oblique nuclear threats during his various interviews with US media outlets on October 24 and 25.[26] Putin and Gerasimov highlighted the missile’s alleged technical capabilities, likely to amplify these nuclear saber-rattling efforts. Russia has been trying to use a combination of carrots and sticks unrelated to the war in Ukraine, such as bilateral arms control talks, to push the United States to give in to concessions about the war.[27]

Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO and key Kremlin negotiator Kirill Dmitriev stated outright that Russia has not deviated from its 2021-2022 original war aims and that Russia continues to seek control of all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts. Dmitriev claimed in Russian on his channels on Telegram and the Kremlin-controlled messaging platform MAX on October 26 that any peace settlement must address the alleged “root causes” of the war in Ukraine, which Russian officials have repeatedly defined as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) eastward expansion and Ukraine’s alleged discrimination against Russian speakers.[28] Dmitriev also claimed that the Russian economy is in good condition with low debt and a strong ruble. Dmitriev also directly referenced Russian President Vladimir Putin’s June 2024 speech to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), in which Putin demanded that Ukrainian forces must “completely withdraw” from Ukrainian-controlled territory in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and that Ukraine must abandon its goal to join NATO before Russia can agree to a ceasefire and peace negotiations.[29] Dmitriev’s reiteration of Putin’s 2024 demands underscores Russia’s unchanged position and unwillingness to compromise on its maximalist demands. Dmitriev’s statement also indicates that Russia’s recent offers to cede parts of southern Ukraine in exchange for all of Donetsk Oblast are disingenuous proposals.[30] Dmitriev notably avoided directly discussing Russia’s uncompromising position during his recent statements to US media outlets.[31] Dmitriev’s rhetoric continues to show the marked difference in Kremlin narratives meant for Russian domestic audiences and those meant for American audiences. The Kremlin continues to prime Russian audiences to support a protracted war to achieve all of Russia’s original demands.

Russian forces continue to launch long-range glide bomb strikes against Ukrainian cities. A Russian milblogger claimed on October 25 that elements of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) launched a glide bomb strike against Kamyanske, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (northwest of Zaporizhzhia City along the right [west] bank of the Dnipro River) from a distance of roughly 150 kilometers.[44] Kryvyi Rih Mayor Oleksandr Vilkul reported on October 26 that Russian forces conducted a guided glide bomb strike against Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.[45] ISW has recently observed reports of Russian forces conducting long-range strikes with modified glide bombs against Ukrainian cities.[46] Russian forces are likely operating their aircraft farther from the frontline and beyond the range of Ukrainian air defense systems, exploiting Ukraine’s scarcity of air defense systems.

Key Takeaways

  1. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov continue to make exaggerated claims of battlefield victories while demonstrating that the Kremlin remains committed to seizing the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts.
  2. Russian milbloggers widely denied Gerasimov’s claims.
  3. The Kremlin is exploiting Russia’s recent reliance on infiltration missions and the absence of contiguous front lines in some tactical areas, and the resulting interspersal of forces to make exaggerated battlefield claims.
  4. Putin attempted to justify Russia’s slow pace of advance because of Russian concern for civilian safety and casualties.
  5. Russia continues to issue explicit nuclear threats as part of a multi-pronged effort seeking to deter continued US pressure on Russia and support for Ukraine.
  6. Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO and key Kremlin negotiator Kirill Dmitriev stated outright that Russia has not deviated from its 2021-2022 original war aims and that Russia continues to seek control of all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts.
  7. The Russian economy is showing its first signs of stagnation in manufacturing sectors critical to the Russian defense industrial base (DIB).
  8. Russian regional authorities continue reducing one-time recruitment payments, supporting ISW’s forecast that Russia may begin compulsory recruitment of reservists in the face of mounting economic strain.
  9. Russian forces continue to launch long-range glide bomb strikes against Ukrainian cities.
  10. European officials continue to report on Russian hybrid operations in Europe over the past several years.
  11. Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Dobropillya tactical area. Russian forces recently advanced near Lyman and Siversk and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.
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.