Trump suspends Russia sanctions as deadly attacks plunge Ukraine into darkness
President Donald Trump suspended recently enacted sanctions and tariffs on Russia shortly before they were due to take effect, citing U.S. national interests and rising energy prices. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticized the easing of restrictions, warning that increased Russian diesel sales would help fund Moscow’s war without meaningfully lowering U.S. fuel costs. Russian missile and drone attacks killed at least eight people and injured 60 in Ukraine, while more than a million people temporarily lost electricity. EU leaders reaffirmed support for Ukraine, welcomed new sanctions on Moscow, and approved €6.6 billion in military assistance, but did not approve Ukraine’s request for an additional €70 billion for 2027.
about 10 hours ago
President Donald Trump suspended newly enacted sanctions and tariffs targeting Russia shortly before they were due to take effect, citing U.S. national interests amid rising energy prices. The move drew criticism from Ukraine and European allies as Russian attacks killed civilians and disrupted electricity across Ukraine. 1
The suspended measures included penalties on countries buying Russian oil and natural gas, intended to increase economic pressure on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine. Trump’s decision followed an agreement allowing more Russian diesel onto global markets. 1
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy argued that the additional diesel would do little to lower U.S. fuel prices while providing Russia with more revenue for its military campaign. He also described the effects of the war on children who have spent years facing air-raid warnings, sheltering underground or attending classes online. 1
Russian missile and drone strikes killed at least eight people and injured 60 in Friday’s attacks, while more than one million people lost electricity. Ukrainian authorities said repair crews later restored power to more than one million people. 1
The strikes hit cities and energy infrastructure as Ukraine approached another winter of war, raising concerns about the impact on families, older people and other vulnerable residents. 1
At a summit in Brussels, EU leaders reaffirmed support for Ukraine, welcomed a new package of sanctions against Moscow and approved the release of €6.6 billion—about $7.5 billion—in military assistance through the European Peace Facility. They also expressed regret over Washington’s decision to ease restrictions on Russian diesel. 1
The leaders did not approve Zelenskyy’s request for an additional €70 billion in financial and military aid for 2027, instead calling for further assessment of Ukraine’s funding needs. The decisions highlighted differences between Washington and Brussels over economic pressure on Russia and the support needed for Ukraine. 1*
The moral limits of national interest amid wartime aggression
National interest can be a legitimate concern in wartime, but it is never a moral blank cheque. Catholic just-war reasoning treats political decisions—including the decision to use force—as morally accountable: a state may defend people and pursue the common good, but it may not make its own advantage the highest or only standard. The relevant common good includes not only the nation’s own people but, as far as the decision affects them, other peoples and the wider community of nations.
When a nation is attacked, defending the innocent and resisting grave injustice can be a duty of public authority, not merely an expression of self-interest. But that duty does not license unlimited retaliation: the response must be proportionate and directed toward stopping the wrong, protecting the innocent, and restoring a just peace.
The moral evaluation also depends on the war’s purpose. A defense of essential rights is not the same as a war pursued for conquest, vengeance, domination, or domestic political advantage. A good cause cannot make an unjust intention or unjust means acceptable; “my country right or wrong” is incompatible with the principle that a nation remains accountable to moral law.
Nor does the label defensive settle every question. A government must establish that a grave injustice exists, consider whether peaceful remedies can address it, and weigh the likely benefits against the foreseeable harms. The aim must be genuinely public and proportionate—not simply a strategic gain recast as a moral necessity.
Even a just cause does not justify every method of fighting. Force must remain necessary and proportionate to the legitimate end; noncombatants must not be deliberately attacked, and destruction that does not contribute to a legitimate military purpose is not justified merely because it may punish or intimidate an enemy population. The supplied historical Catholic encyclopedia likewise insists that the purpose of war cannot exceed the just cause and condemns wanton harm to civilians and prisoners.
This is why “national survival” or “victory” cannot, by itself, answer moral questions about particular military actions. The means matter as well as the end: suffering inflicted on civilians does not become permissible simply because leaders believe it will shorten the war or improve their country’s position.
Catholic reasoning avoids two opposite errors. One is treating war as beyond moral judgment—as if necessity and national interest were enough. The other is assuming that refusing force is always morally innocent. Authorities may fail in their duty if avoidable inaction leaves the innocent exposed to grave injustice. Yet recognizing that possibility does not dispense with careful judgment about whether force is justified and how it may be used.
The practical test, then, is not simply “Does this serve our nation?” It is: Does it answer a grave wrong, protect people, serve a broader common good, and use only proportionate and morally permissible means? The supplied sources establish these principles, but without facts about a particular conflict they do not determine whether a specific war, operation, or policy meets them.