EU sanctions move accelerates as Putin escalation tests NATO

Three Russian fighter jets briefly crossed into NATO airspace headed toward Tallinn, Estonia, on Friday before Italian F-35s moved to intercept them, a fresh sign of Russia’s assertive posture toward the alliance. Moments after the incident, the European Commission announced that it would advance sanctions by banning imports of Russian energy, including liquefied natural gas, a year ahead of schedule, a move that aligns with President Donald Trump’s stated demand that NATO members stop buying oil from Russia.

In Washington, the political calculus around sanctions has shifted as Republican voters show growing appetite for a tougher stance on Moscow. A 74% share of Republicans now backs increased sanctions on Russia, according to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, with a 21-point rise in Republican support for military assistance. A Fox News poll adds that 59% of voters think the United States should be doing more to help Ukraine. Despite Trump’s oft-stated line that the conflict is Biden’s war, public sentiment appears to be pulling Congress toward action.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in both parties are pressing for sanctions. Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick are working to persuade congressional leadership to attach sanctions to must-pass legislation, with Speaker Mike Johnson signaling that sanctions against Russia are long overdue and expressing willingness to act. A veto-proof coalition of 85 cosponsors has kept sanctions legislation alive while awaiting Trump’s move. The immediate political advantage is clear for Republicans who support a tougher line on Moscow, especially as the White House weighs its next steps.

Analysts and advocates caution that sanctions alone are unlikely to force Moscow to the negotiating table. Russia has shown increasing ability to skirt penalties, and the Higher School of Economics in Moscow has even launched a master’s program focused on sanctions evasion. Still, officials say the greatest pressure on Russia remains the battlefield. Ukraine continues to rely on Western weapons to defend against Russian air strikes, sustain the frontline, and disrupt Russia’s war economy by targeting oil refining and other energy capacities.

In August, Ukrainian strikes knocked out about 20% of Russia’s oil refining capacity, a development that, if sustained, could limit Moscow’s ability to fund the war. The United States and its allies have argued that a combination of sanctions and military support to Ukraine is essential to constrain Russia’s aggression. The notes also point to recent Russian actions—drones and missiles against European diplomatic facilities, an American factory, and an attack that killed 25 retirees queuing for pension checks—that illustrate the broader regional risk Mumbai-style escalation poses to Western interests. Earlier, Moscow undertook a controversial raid involving 19 drones into Poland, underscoring the volatility of the current moment.

Trump has urged a sequence in which sanctions are tied to oil purchases by European economies, writing in a letter to allies that he was ready to impose major sanctions on Russia when all NATO nations stop buying oil from Moscow. The EU’s decision to move ahead with an energy embargo has given Trump a potential edge in Congress, where Republicans say they have the support and political cover to act if the White House does not.

Beyond rhetoric and politics, policy wonks emphasize concrete tools available to the United States. Proposals include joining the EU price cap on Russian oil and imposing full blocking sanctions on Russian energy exports, along with measures against the Russian shadow fleet of oil tankers. Additional options target Western components used in Russian weapons systems, such as semiconductors from Western suppliers, and the use of frozen Russian assets under the REPO Act to fund aid for Ukraine. Advocates argue that these steps would not only punish Moscow but also help finance Ukrainian defense and reconstruction efforts.

Crucially, observers say sanctions must be complemented by continued military aid to Ukraine. Ukraine has warned that Western support remains vital to defend against escalating Russian strikes and to sustain pressure on Russia’s war economy. The recent assessment that Russia’s aim is to degrade Ukrainian defenses and energy infrastructure reinforces the view that comprehensive policy—sanctions, weapons, and continued diplomatic pressure—will be necessary to create leverage for negotiations.

Overall, the convergence of public opinion in favor of stronger actions, congressional momentum, and a EU-wide policy shift places new strategic pressure on Washington. If Washington acts decisively, observers say the United States could shape the terms of any potential diplomatic settlement while also signaling that Moscow’s aggression has real political and economic costs for its leadership. Yet sanctions alone are unlikely to bring Moscow to the table without sustained battlefield momentum and credible Western support for Ukraine’s defense.

Doug Klain, deputy director for policy and strategy at Razom for Ukraine and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council, underscores the convergence of policy and public sentiment. He notes that Americans want to see tangible consequences for Russia and that sanctions, where they are carefully targeted and integrated with military aid, can contribute to pressure on Moscow. Still, he cautions against relying on sanctions as a stand-alone solution, emphasizing the importance of a coherent strategy that connects economic penalties with robust support for Ukraine and credible diplomatic efforts.

As the week unfolds, the world watches whether European energy curbs and U.S. legislative momentum translate into a more aggressive push to constrain Moscow. The coming days could define how Washington, Brussels, and Kyiv coordinate their next moves amid a resurgent test of NATO unity and a shifting geopolitical landscape.