October 30, 2025

Institute for the Study of war: Trump calls for nuclear weapons tests in response to Putin announcement 

Institute for the Study of War

US President Donald Trump called for the United States to resume tests of its nuclear weapons, likely in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ostentatious announcements of recent tests of Russian nuclear weapons. Trump stated on October 29 that the United States will start testing its nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” since other countries have been testing their weapons.[1] Trump’s decision comes against the backdrop of recent Kremlin announcements about tests of the nuclear-powered and nuclear-capable Burevestnik missile and Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle, whose ability to deliver nuclear warheads the Kremlin has been highlighting.[2] Trump did not specify if the United States would test nuclear warheads or the delivery systems. Russian officials, however, largely claimed that the United States would begin testing nuclear warheads, alleging that Russia therefore would have a “free hand” to test its own nuclear warheads.[3] Russia tested the Burevestnik and Poseidon delivery systems without nuclear warheads, but Kremlin officials have been publicly talking about the devastating effects the Burevestnik and Poseidon warheads would generate, flaunting the systems as powerful “doomsday” weapons that have no equal and that should force the West to “bow down” to Putin.[4]

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced a unilateral micro-ceasefire near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk but provided no clarity on the timing of the micro-ceasefire. The Russian MoD stated on October 30 that Russian President Vladimir Putin issued an order for a temporary ceasefire to allow journalists to enter and see Ukrainian forces whom Russian forces have allegedly encircled in Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, and Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk).[5] The Russian MoD claimed that the Russian military is willing to observe a five-to-six-hour ceasefire to ensure that journalists receive unimpeded entry and exit corridors to these towns, but that the ceasefire is contingent upon security guarantees for the journalists and Russian forces. ISW does not assess that Russian forces have encircled Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, or Myrnohrad at this time. Putin first offered such a micro-ceasefire on October 29, likely in part to claim that Russia is not the impediment to the peace process.[6] The Kremlin likely intends to use the discussion of this unilateral micro-ceasefire to highlight Russia’s claimed gains in the Kupyansk and Pokrovsk directions and to falsely portray a Russian victory as inevitable. A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger notably acknowledged that the micro-ceasefire is part of a concerted Kremlin informational effort, commenting that the ceasefire is an “unusual step in the [Russian] information war.”[7]

Ukrainian military sources continued to provide details about the difficult situation in the Pokrovsk pocket. Ukrainian soldiers and commanders operating in the Pokrovsk direction continued to indicate that Russian infiltration missions and force accumulations are complicating Ukrainian assault and defense operations and efforts to control Russian movements within the Pokrovsk pocket.[8] The Ukrainian 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces reported that Russian forces are taking advantage of poor weather to resume infiltration tactics in the Pokrovsk direction to inflate the extent of Russian gains.[9] A Ukrainian brigade commander reported that heavy autumnal rains are preventing Russian forces from establishing logistics in Pokrovsk, however.[10] Both Ukrainian sources indicated that Russian drone operations are successfully interdicting Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to and within Pokrovsk and to Myrnohrad.[11] A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger claimed that drone operators of the Russian Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies have established a drone equivalent of “air superiority” in the Pokrovsk direction.[12] The Ukrainian military sources reported that Russian forces, including drone operators, continue to dress as civilians – perfidy under international law – to conduct infiltration missions without detection.[13] An image from German outlet BILD shows a Russian soldier dressed as a civilian and wearing no military insignia in a high-rise building in Pokrovsk.[14] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi visited Ukrainian commanders operating in the Pokrovsk direction and reported on October 30 that Russian claims of encircling Ukrainian forces within Pokrovsk or Myrnohrad are false.[15]

The Russian military command is currently prioritizing offensive operations in the Pokrovsk direction, having reportedly concentrated 11,000 personnel for the Pokrovsk effort.[16] The Russian rate of advance in the area, however, remains slow even as Ukrainian forces face increasing challenges in defending the area. Ukrainian forces in the Pokrovsk direction have struggled with Russian infiltration missions and drone strikes against Ukrainian GLOCs for weeks, but continue to slow the pace of Russian advances, particularly on the eastern flank near Myrnohrad.[17] The rate of Russian advances in the Pokrovsk direction may change if some factor influencing Russia’s offensive capabilities or Ukraine’s defensive capabilities changes. The changing nature of drone warfare and the increasingly porous nature of the frontline in the Pokrovsk direction make it difficult to assess the degree of control that Russian or Ukrainian forces exert within and around Pokrovsk. ISW is therefore unprepared to offer any assessments or forecasts at this time about the rate at which Russian forces may collapse the Ukrainian pocket near Pokrovsk.

Russian forces conducted a large-scale series of missile and drone strikes including over 700 projectiles against Ukraine on the night of October 29 to 30. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 653 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other drones – about 400 of which were Shahed-type drones – from the directions of Kursk and Oryol cities; Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Krasnodar Krai; and occupied Cape Chauda, Crimea.[26] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces also launched four Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles from Nizhny Novgorod Oblast; five Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles from Rostov Oblast; eight Kalibr cruise missiles from unspecified areas; two Iskander-K cruise missiles from Kursk and Voronezh oblasts; 30 Kh-101 cruise missiles from Saratov Oblast; two Kh-59/69 cruise missiles from Saratov Oblast; and one Kh-31P anti-radiation missile from the Black Sea. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces shot down 623 of the 705 air targets, including 592 drones, seven Kalibr missiles, one Iskander-K missile, 21 Kh-101 missiles, and two Kh-59/69 missiles. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that 16 missiles and 63 drones struck 20 locations and that downed drone and missile debris fell at 19 locations. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that three missiles were “lost in location,” likely referring to Ukrainian electronic warfare (EW) interference. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russian forces struck residential infrastructure in Zaporizhzhia City, injuring five children.[27] Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces struck energy and residential infrastructure in Vinnytsia, Kyiv, Mykolaiv, Cherkasy, Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk, Chernihiv, Sumy, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Lviv oblasts.[28] Ukraine’s largest private energy company, DTEK, reported on October 30 that Russia struck DTEK thermal power plants (TPPs) in unspecified Ukrainian oblasts, seriously damaging TPP equipment during Russia’s third massive strike against DTEK TPPs in October 2025.[29] The Polish Armed Forces Operational Command reported that it scrambled two fighter jets and an early warning aircraft in response to the overnight Russian strikes.[30]

Key Takeaways

  1. US President Donald Trump called for the United States to resume tests of its nuclear weapons, likely in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ostentatious announcements of recent tests of Russian nuclear weapons.
  2. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced a unilateral micro-ceasefire near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk but provided no clarity on the timing of the micro-ceasefire.
  3. Ukrainian military sources continued to provide details about the difficult situation in the Pokrovsk pocket.
  4. The Kremlin is activating plans to use active reservists to protect infrastructure in the Russian rear.
  5. Russian forces conducted a large-scale series of missile and drone strikes including over 700 projectiles against Ukraine on the night of October 29 to 30.
  6. Polish fighters intercepted a Russian reconnaissance aircraft over the Baltic Sea for the second time in three days.
  7. Ukrainian forces advanced in northern Sumy Oblast. Russian forces advanced near Siversk, Pokrovsk, and Hulyaipole.
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.