I find it difficult to see how something can accelerate (and therefore increase its velocity, e.g. start to move) in a $Re\ll 1$ situation.
It is customary, at low Reynolds numbers, to ignore inertial effects. This means that the nonlinear terms in the Navier-Stokes equations vanish. One can prove from the resulting equation (Stokes' equation) that, for example, if a sphere of radius $R$ is placed in a fluid of viscosity $\eta$ and local velocity $v$ (in a configuration at which $Re\ll 1$), the drag force experienced by the sphere will be
$$f_D=6\pi\eta R v$$
where $\eta$ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, $R$ the radius of the sphere.
What does this mean in terms of the force balance on the sphere?
Let's assume that I apply a driving force $F$ on the sphere, and I apply Newton's 2nd Law to this situation
$$F_{tot}=F - f_D = F - 6\pi\eta a \frac{dx}{dt} = m \frac{d^2 x}{dt^2}$$
where $f_D$ is the drag force. Does this imply that the motion of the sphere is given by the solution of the ODE above?
Or is the acceleration always going to be zero because of the absence of inertia? How can one justify this in the formalism used above? By imposing that the inertial mass $m=0$?
Edit: The following extract, from this well-know review on microswimmers, hopefully justifies the doubts about whether acceleration is meaningful or not in this context. The authors had first stated: "Since swimming flows are typically unsteady, we implicitly assume the typical frequency ω is small enough so that the frequency Reynolds number $\rho L \omega^2/\eta$ is also small."