Addressing your first doubt, I assume here you are talking about superconducting wires.
If electrons are at rest and 0 potential difference is applied across a section of the wire. Then obviously there will be 0 current. If there is no force acting on them they will continue to move at a constant velocity (in this case, 0 velocity)
now alot of people naively apply ohms law to get the conclusion that in superconducting wires from this rest state, where the electrons are at rest, 0 potential is needed to generate a current in the wire. This is absolute NONSENSE for a current to be GENERATED a force must be applied meaning a potential difference MUST be present to GENERATE a current.
Notice how I said GENERATE a current.
Ohms law is stated as
V=IR
plugging in 0 to this equation gives that for a specific current "I" the potential across this wire is 0
Now if you understand what ohms law is actually saying, then this IS technically true. HOWEVER this potential difference does not represent the potential needed to GENERATEA a current, per say. It actually represents the potential difference needed to MAINTAIN a CONSTANT current.
With zero resistance forces opposing the motion of the electrons in the wire, the electrons will move at a constant speed. Lets say I have a superconducting wire, and I apply a potential difference across this wire. Clearly, starting from rest, the electrons are going to be ACCELERATING and the current is going to increase.
Now what potential difference is needed to MAINTAIN this
constant current, not generate this current. Clearly in the absence of resistive forces , zero potential is needed to maintain this current as if I stop applying a potential to my wire, the electrons are going to keep on moving at that constant speed.
Why does ohms law represent the potential needed to maintain the current?
To see this clearly , let's derive the microscopic ohms law.
(Search up the drude model of conductivity.)
The equation of motion of an electron is:
$ma = Eq -(m/T) v$
Here there is an applied E field, with a resistive term proportional to the charges velocity.
Clearly the acceleration of the electron is going to be high at first when the V term is low. But as the electron accelerates, V is going to get bigger and bigger until it is exactly equal to the applied electric field, once this happens, the electron is going to move at a constant velocity
Ohms law is a STEADY STATE solution to this differential equation, and represents the FINAL velocity of the electron once the resistive force equal the applied electric field .clearly to find the final velocity of the electron we set a to be equal to 0,
Set a=0:
Doing so gives
Meaning
$ Eq-m/T v =0$
$v= (qT/m) E$
Subbing in the definition of current density
by definition J = $\rho v $
or $J= nq v$
where n is some number density. Plugging back into our equation
$$J = (nq^{2}T/m)E$$
$$J = \sigma E$$
which means current density J in the steady state is proportional to the electric field at a point. so for a constant electric field, J everywhere will reach some constant value
So now we can understand how ohms law is derived, by taking the steady state solution of the above differential equation, we can see why ohms law gives V=0 for R=0, as the equation represents the conditions needed to have ZERO acceleration. Which obviously comes from zero potential.
Obviously to get the current going , a potential difference IS needed
Your second point is answered above, as ohms law doesn't actually say there IS zero potential, rather the PD to maintain a constant current. If there is a battery connected to a superconducting wire, there most certainly IS a potential difference across the wire, however the current won't be constant, it will be increasing. Hence using ohms law in this way is just nonsense