Ukraine hit four Russian warships in Novorossiysk harbor early Wednesday morning. In the same operation it also stopped two grain terminals, and by the afternoon the price of wheat in Chicago had moved about 3 percent. Both of those facts came out of the same night’s work, and most coverage treated only the first one as the story. The Church has a settled way of reading the second one, and it does not file the grain under regrettable side effects.

The News Story

Ukraine carried out a large overnight strike on the Russian port city of Novorossiysk on August 12, damaging four warships of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, knocking two major grain terminals out of operation, and killing at least two civilians, including an 8-year-old boy. The attack struck a target more than 300 kilometers (185 miles) from the front line and hit what President Volodymyr Zelensky called “the last major stronghold of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea.”^[1][2]

Ukraine’s General Staff said preliminary information indicated four Russian vessels sustained varying degrees of damage: the Project 11356 frigates Admiral Makarov and Admiral Essen, a Project 21631 Buyan-M small missile ship, and the Project 22160 patrol ship Vasil Bykov. The General Staff said the full extent of the damage was still being assessed. Independently obtained satellite imagery suggested the damage was not catastrophic, with none of the vessels visibly on fire or sinking as of Wednesday.^[3]

Zelensky claimed responsibility for the operation in a post on X, saying Ukrainian forces used Palianytsia jet-powered drone missiles, Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles, and uncrewed naval surface vessels, and that they struck Russian air-defense positions, piers, and port infrastructure. “The occupation fleet and all the infrastructure supporting it will not be safe as long as Russian aggression continues,” he wrote. Russia moved much of the Black Sea Fleet to Novorossiysk after repeated Ukrainian strikes on naval targets in occupied Crimea.^[4]

Krasnodar Krai Governor Veniamin Kondratyev said civilians were killed and injured in the wider wave of attacks; casualty counts varied by outlet, with the governor’s office reporting at least two dead, including an 8-year-old child, and roughly eight injured, while The Moscow Times cited sources reporting three deaths. Novorossiysk Mayor Andrei Kravchenko said more than two dozen residential buildings, four businesses, and educational facilities were damaged, and that the city’s water supply was suspended.^[5]

Novorossiysk is also one of Russia’s largest commercial export hubs. Reuters reported that two grain terminals halted operations after the strike, and that Chicago wheat futures rose roughly 3 percent on concerns about disruption to Russian grain exports. Eyewitnesses reported fires at a grain terminal, the Sheskharis oil terminal, and port infrastructure.^[6]

Separately on Wednesday, President Vladimir Putin appeared aboard the missile cruiser Varyag near Sakhalin, observing Pacific Fleet exercises involving more than 13,000 personnel and roughly 60 vessels across the Sea of Japan, Sea of Okhotsk, and Northwest Pacific. Putin warned that if European governments seize Russian merchant ships, Moscow will “respond in kind, wherever we deem necessary, including within the Pacific Fleet’s area of responsibility,” according to a statement posted by Russia’s Foreign Ministry. He also accused NATO of expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific and Arctic.^[7][8]

Also on Wednesday, Zelensky told the Ukrainian Youth Forum that Kyiv and its partners had a joint plan to pressure Moscow into ending the war, without giving details. U.S.-led talks have been stalled for months. Romania said its naval forces destroyed two suspected Russian Gerbera drones over the Black Sea about 90 nautical miles from Constanța.^[9]

Catholic Social Teaching Analysis

What The Second Half Of The Strike Did

Read the Novorossiysk operation as two events that happened at once, because that’s what it was. One event took place in a naval basin, where four gray hulls belonging to a fleet at war took damage of a degree still being counted. The other took place at a pair of commercial terminals a short distance away, where conveyor belts stopped, and a queue of bulk carriers stopped, and the grain in the silos stayed in the silos.

Russia is the largest wheat exporter on earth, and the overwhelming share of that wheat leaves through Black Sea ports. Novorossiysk is the biggest of them. So when Reuters reported the terminals down and the Chicago board up about 3 percent, that number was doing something more than registering trader anxiety. A wheat futures contract is a claim on future bread, and when the claim gets more expensive the bread gets more expensive, and the people who feel that first are the people for whom bread is already most of the food budget. They live in Egypt, in Sudan, in Yemen, in Bangladesh. None of them are parties to this war. Most of them have never heard of the Black Sea Fleet.

I want to be careful and fair here. A naval base used by a fleet that is shelling Ukrainian cities is a military target by any standard anyone has ever written down, and Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion that Russia started. Nothing in what follows says otherwise. The question I’m putting is narrower and harder: what moral weight does the Church assign to the grain, and to the people at the far end of the grain, when the grain and the warship sit on the same waterfront?

The Church Has Already Changed The Frame You Would Reach For

Most Catholics who try to answer that question reach instinctively for the just war tradition. Proportionality, discrimination, double effect, the whole apparatus. And the honest thing to tell you is that Pope Leo XIV has moved the Church off that apparatus as the operative framework. In Magnifica Humanitas, at paragraph 192, he wrote that “without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”^[10] He is the reigning Pontiff, this is his encyclical, and on questions of war and force his teaching governs over the older Thomistic scaffolding. That’s not a small adjustment and I don’t want to soften it.

What Leo XIV keeps is the right of self-defense in the strict sense. What he takes away is the habit of running a checklist and calling the result justice. And that removal changes how you read Wednesday. Under the old apparatus, the argument writes itself in about four sentences: legitimate military objective, foreseen but unintended commercial damage, proportionate to the military advantage, therefore permissible, next question. Leo XIV’s point is that this form of reasoning has functioned for a very long time as a machine for producing permissions. Take the machine away and you’re left holding the actual facts, which are harder: the ships, the terminals, the boy, and the wheat contract.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which is the Church’s own organized synthesis of her social teaching and the document I lean on most in these posts, had already been pushing in this direction for twenty years. It says flatly that war “is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations,” and it quotes John XXIII’s judgment that “it is hardly possible to imagine that in an atomic era, war could be used as an instrument of justice.”^[11] Then it gives the constructive half: “another name for peace is development. Just as there is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a collective responsibility for promoting development.”^[12] Hold that sentence next to a grain terminal that stopped working and you’ll see why this story belongs in a Catholic column at all.

The Rule The Compendium Actually Gives You

Set aside the checklist and the Compendium still hands you working norms, and they’re sharper than most people expect.

Start with number 504, on the duty to protect the innocent. The right to use force in legitimate defense “is associated with the duty to protect and help innocent victims who are not able to defend themselves from acts of aggression.” Then, in the same paragraph, a line that reads like it was written for exactly this situation: “humanitarian aid must reach the civilian population and must never be used to influence those receiving it; the good of the human person must take precedence over the interests of the parties to the conflict.”^[13]

Sit with that last clause. The good of the human person takes precedence over the interests of the parties. Precedence is a ranking word, and the Compendium chose it deliberately. When the food that keeps civilians alive becomes an object of the war, the persons who need it outrank the war aims of everyone involved, on both sides, including the side that was invaded.

Number 505 restates the same standard as a duty binding on consciences rather than on treaties. “The principle of humanity inscribed in the conscience of every person and all peoples includes the obligation to protect civil populations from the effects of war,” and the Church warns that this minimum protection “is all too often violated in the name of military or political demands which should never prevail over the value of the human person.”^[14] Notice that the Compendium says “the effects of war,” and that the word reaches past anybody’s aims or intentions and out to what actually happened to people.

Then there’s number 507, where the Church discusses sanctions and embargoes. She grants that measures short of war can be legitimate, then draws a bright line: sanctions “must never be used as a means for the direct punishment of an entire population: it is not licit that entire populations, and above all their most vulnerable members, be made to suffer because of such sanctions,” and an economic embargo “cannot be justified when the resulting effects are indiscriminate.”^[15]

That paragraph is about sanctions, and Wednesday’s strike was not a sanction. But look at the moral principle underneath it. The Church’s objection to an indiscriminate embargo has nothing to do with the legal instrument used. Her objection is that the suffering lands on people selected by nothing except their need to eat. A missile that closes a grain terminal produces the same distribution of harm as an embargo on that terminal, with the same people at the far end of it, and the Compendium’s criterion, whether the resulting effects are indiscriminate, applies to it with the same force. Method doesn’t launder the effect.

Hunger Has A Specific Place In Catholic Moral Language

Here is where the Catechism gets uncomfortably direct, and where I think most readers will be surprised by how strong the Church’s language is.

The fifth commandment, as the Catechism explains it at paragraph 2269, “forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.” And then, in the same paragraph: “The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.”^[16]

Read that carefully, because the Catechism is doing three separate things there. It’s saying that you can violate the fifth commandment without ever aiming at anyone’s death. It’s saying that a society which shrugs at famine commits a grave offense by the shrugging. And it’s saying that people whose ordinary commercial dealings end in someone else’s hunger bear real homicidal guilt for it, guilt that is “imputable to them,” which is the Church’s technical way of saying you own this, personally, and you will answer for it.

The paragraph closes by refusing the escape hatch: “one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.”

So Catholic moral theology already has a category for what happened at those terminals, and the category is heavier than “collateral.” Hunger caused at a distance, by people who never intended it, through mechanisms of trade and price, still lands inside the fifth commandment. That’s why I say the grain is not collateral. Under Catholic moral language it sits within the commandment against killing, weighed by the standard of proportionate reason, and the burden of showing that reason falls on whoever fired.

I don’t think a Catholic can settle that weighing from a laptop in Nebraska, and I’m not going to pretend to. Ukraine has a real right of self-defense, Novorossiysk is a real naval base, and the moral responsibility for a war belongs first to whoever started it. What I can say with confidence is that the weighing is required, that the Church has told us what goes on the scale, and that a strike is not automatically cleared by the fact that its primary target was gray and floating.

The Person At The Far End Of The Grain

Catholic social doctrine keeps insisting that the person at the receiving end of an economic shock is a person, with a name, and not an aggregate.

The Compendium grounds this in Genesis, in a passage most readers skip. Number 428 observes that the human being in Genesis was placed in a setting that includes “various possibilities for food (the trees of the garden), work (the command to cultivate) and above all community,” and it concludes that “God wants to guarantee that man has what is necessary for his growth.”^[17] Food belongs there to the created order God set up so that human beings could live at all, right alongside work and community. Interfering with the movement of food touches something God arranged on purpose.

That conviction runs straight through the modern documents. When the Compendium lists what actually keeps poor countries poor, “lack of food security” sits in the list alongside illiteracy, absence of basic health care, and lack of clean water, and the Church names the inability to reach the international market as a leading cause of underdevelopment.^[18] When it turns to foreign debt, it insists that even a legitimate creditor’s claim must give way before “the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress.”^[19] The word “fundamental” is doing real work there. Subsistence outranks contracts. It also outranks strategy.

And on poverty itself the Compendium is blunt in a way that should make comfortable Catholics wince. It calls the poverty of billions “the one issue that most challenges our human and Christian consciences,” and says poverty is characterized by “an unequal growth that does not recognize the ‘equal right of all people to take their seat at the table of the common banquet.’”^[20] The table of the common banquet. The image is the Eucharist, and it’s also just a table with food on it, and the Church is saying those two things are not as far apart as we like to keep them.

Pope Leo XIV has pressed the same point in Dilexi Te, his exhortation on love for the poor. He writes that a culture persists, “sometimes well disguised,” that “discards others without even realizing it and tolerates with indifference that millions of people die of hunger or survive in conditions unfit for human beings.”^[21] Well disguised is the phrase to notice. Nobody in this story wants anyone to starve. The Ukrainian planners who selected Novorossiysk were not thinking about Sudanese bread queues, and I believe that. The Pope’s charge is that we’ve built a way of seeing the world in which those queues simply don’t appear in the frame, and that the not-appearing is itself the sin. He also reminds us, citing John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra, that rich countries “could no longer remain indifferent to countries suffering from hunger and extreme poverty.”^[22]

What This Asks Of Us

So what do you actually do with a headline about four damaged frigates?

First, read the whole strike. Ukrainian officials named the ships and the piers, and Reuters named the terminals, and both belong in the account you carry around. A Catholic reading of the news means refusing to let the militarily interesting half of an event crowd out the half that will show up in somebody’s grocery bill three continents away. That 3 percent measures how much harder eating just became for people who were already at the edge of affording it.

Second, keep the boy in view. An 8-year-old was killed at Novorossiysk on Wednesday, in a Russian city, by a Ukrainian weapon, during a war Russia started. All four of those clauses are true at once, and the Church’s teaching on the protection of civilians doesn’t get suspended by the last one. Number 505 binds every conscience, and the child is owed the same grief regardless of whose flag flew over the launcher.

Third, resist the accounting habit. This war has spent two and a half years training all of us to read human beings as entries in a ledger: casualties per side, territory per month, warships per operation. The Compendium warns against exactly this drift when it says that “international law must ensure that the law of the more powerful does not prevail.”^[23] Ledger reasoning always ends up favoring whoever has the bigger column, and the poor never have the bigger column.

Fourth, do something small and concrete. The Church has never let solidarity stay at the level of sentiment; she treats it as a virtue, which means a settled habit that costs you something on an ordinary Tuesday. Give to a food relief agency working in the countries that import Black Sea wheat. Catholic Relief Services works in most of them. And pray for the dead of Novorossiysk by name, which in this case means praying for a boy whose name most of us will never learn.

Peace will come to the Black Sea when somebody decides to stop, and no analysis written in Omaha is going to hasten that. What can change today is the size of the frame we use when we read about it. Wednesday’s operation put four warships out of service and put a quantity of the world’s bread out of reach. The Church asks us to see both, to refuse the arithmetic that makes the second one disappear, and to remember that the person at the end of that supply chain is not a rounding error in a war he never joined.

---

Footnotes

1. “Ukraine War Latest: 4 Russian Warships Damaged in Strike on Black Sea Fleet Port in Novorossiysk,” The Kyiv Independent, August 12, 2026, https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-war-latest-4-russian-warships-damaged-in-strike-on-black-sea-fleet-port-in-novorossiysk/. ↩
2. “Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Says a Nighttime Blitz Damages Russia’s Black Sea Naval Stronghold,” NBC News, August 12, 2026, https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-attack-black-sea-fleet-rcna592069. ↩
3. “Ukraine Confirms Hits on Four Russian Warships at Novorossiysk,” The Maritime Executive, August 12, 2026, https://maritime-executive.com/article/ukraine-confirms-hits-on-four-russian-warships-at-novorossiysk. ↩
4. “Explosions Rock Russia’s Novorossiysk After ‘Unique Operation’ Targeting Black Sea Fleet, Zelensky Says,” The Kyiv Independent, August 12, 2026, https://kyivindependent.com/drone-attacks-hit-russias-novorossiysk-occupied-crimea/. ↩
5. “3 Killed, 2 Grain Terminals Halt Work in Novorossiysk After Ukrainian Attack, Sources Say,” The Moscow Times, August 12, 2026, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/08/12/drones-kill-one-reportedly-halt-work-at-novorossiysk-grain-terminal-a93465. ↩
6. “Russia’s Novorossiysk Grain Terminal Halts Operations After Ukrainian Drone Attack,” Reuters, August 12, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/russias-novorossiysk-grain-terminal-halts-operations-after-ukrainian-drone-2026-08-12/. ↩
7. “Ukraine Pounds Black Sea Fleet’s ‘Last Major Stronghold’ While Putin Flexes Naval Power in Pacific,” Fox News, August 12, 2026, https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-pounds-black-sea-fleets-last-major-stronghold-while-putin-flexes-naval-power-pacific. ↩
8. “Ukraine Strikes Russia’s ‘Last’ Black Sea Fleet Stronghold in Novorossiysk,” Kyiv Post, August 12, 2026, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/82201. ↩
9. “Drones Attack Oil Terminal and Naval Base in Novorossiysk,” Militarnyi, August 12, 2026, https://militarnyi.com/en/news/drones-attack-oil-terminal-and-naval-base-in-novorossiysk/. ↩
10. Leo XIV, Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas (2026), no. 192, quoted in Colleen Dulle, “Did Pope Leo Actually Reject Just War Theory? Unpacking What ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ Said About the Doctrine,” America, June 8, 2026, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith-and-reason/2026/06/08/pope-leo-just-war-theory-magnifica-humanitas/. ↩
11. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 497. ↩
12. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 498. ↩
13. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 504. ↩
14. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 505. ↩
15. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 507. ↩
16. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), no. 2269. ↩
17. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 428. ↩
18. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 447. ↩
19. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 450, quoting John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (May 1, 1991), no. 35. ↩
20. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 449, quoting John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (December 30, 1987), no. 33. ↩
21. Leo XIV, Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te (October 4, 2025), no. 11, https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/apost_exhortations/documents/20251004-dilexi-te.html. ↩
22. Dilexi Te, no. 83. ↩
23. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 439, quoting John Paul II, “Message for the 2004 World Day of Peace,” no. 9. ↩

Books Cited

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

• Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Doubleday / Image, 2003