America may offer Ukraine weapons to repel Russia - Economist

America may offer Ukraine weapons to repel Russia

At the same time, the Ukrainian government has begun to persecute anti-corruption activists

WHEN Russian members of parliament uncorked champagne to celebrate the electoral victory of Donald Trump, they hoped that America would stop meddling in the former Soviet backyard and ease sanctions imposed in response to its war in Ukraine. But as some Russians are now saying, it was too early to drink it. On August 2nd Mr Trump reluctantly signed a law which heaps new sanctions on Russia and limits his ability to lift them. A few days earlier, Mike Pence, America’s vice-president, went to Estonia and Georgia and warned against further aggression from “your unpredictable neighbour to the east”. And America may soon supply Ukraine with lethal weapons, a step that Barack Obama refused to take.

Mr Obama’s inaction was heavily criticised at the time by many Republicans, including Kurt Volker, a former ambassador to NATO and a close associate of John McCain, a hawkish Republican senator. Last month Mr Volker was appointed by the State Department as America’s special representative to Ukraine. It is up to Mr Trump’s administration to approve the supply of arms to Ukraine, but most members of his cabinet are said to be on board. A decision could come within weeks.

American officials and their European counterparts are also discussing whether to begin using the terms “aggression”, “war” and “Russian forces” in place of “conflict” and “separatists” with regard to the fighting in eastern Ukraine. One reason Russian aggression got as far as it did, the argument goes, was that neither the West nor Ukraine was prepared to call it by its proper name. America and its allies restrained Ukraine from fighting when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea—and a weak, post-revolutionary Ukrainian government acquiesced.

Following Russia’s interference in its elections last year, America seems willing to push back more robustly. Members of the Trump administration calculate that Russia has limited scope to escalate. Mr Putin will try to persuade them otherwise. One option might be to occupy Belarus, a former Soviet republic. Another might be to stir political instability in Ukraine.

Awkwardly, America is increasing its support for Ukraine just as Ukraine’s leaders are becoming more focused on their own economic and political fortunes, rather than the good of the country. Last week Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s chocolate-tycoon-turned-president, stripped Mikheil Saakashvili, a radical anti-corruption reformer, of Ukrainian citizenship. Mr Saakashvili, a former president of Georgia who was forced out of his native country by Bidzina Ivanishvili, its richest oligarch, came to Ukraine after the Maidan revolution in 2014 to carry on with his fight against the post-Soviet malaise.

After serving as a governor of Odessa, he fell out with Mr Poroshenko, accusing him of corruption and collusion with oligarchs. In an interview with Ukrainska Pravda, an independent Ukrainian news site, Mr Saakashvili said Mr Poroshenko’s main motivation was making money. Other activists have criticised Mr Poroshenko for lacking the political will to tackle corruption. Government prosecutors have inadvertently provided evidence for that charge by launching attacks on anti-corruption activists.

The prosecutors’ latest target is Oleksandr Danyliuk the reform-minded finance minister. Mr Danyliuk has tried to make the country’s system of VAT refunds (a major source of corruption) more transparent. He has also tried to prune the budget of the prosecution service. On July 31st the prosecutor general’s office said it was probing his income and property.

In fact, the finance minister’s problems stem from a fight between Mr Poroshenko and his own government. Last month, while Mr Danyliuk was in London discussing Ukraine’s economic reforms, the country’s budget was re-carved by the Rada, the parliament, with the help of a close associate of Mr Poroshenko. Some of the changes introduced in Mr Danyliuk’s absence make the budget impossible to fulfil, and resemble dodgy schemes used under the previous regime. The budget also over-estimates the expected tax collection from businesses, creating even more room for extortion.

No amount of weapons supplied by America will defend Ukraine from the internal malaise which made it vulnerable to Russian aggression in the first place.

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "Arming Ukraine"

Why Alexander Hamilton Started the Coast Guard - TIME

Why Alexander Hamilton Started the Coast Guard Posted: 04 Aug 2017 06:00 AM PDT Alexander Hamilton boasts many claims to fame: He was Secretary of the Treasury and the brains behind a national bank, founder of The New York Post, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the inspiration for a Tony Award-winning musical. But this week, the U.S. Coast Guard community celebrates his role as the “father of the U.S. Coast Guard,” the oldest continuous seagoing service. Friday marks the anniversary of the date in 1790 when Congress approved his plan for a small fleet to ensure the safe conduct of trade. About a year into Hamilton’s tenure as the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. had hit rough seas, financially speaking. The American Revolution had created millions in debt, especially to France. There was no income tax to raise money, so the nation had to rely on tariffs on luxuries brought into the country. However, in the lead-up to independence, the colonists had gotten pretty good at avoiding paying those fees. The high seas were the first highways, and a boat with a cargo of rum could be cruising up to Boston, when, to avoid paying a duty on the liquor, its crew might hand off the good to a small boat that paddled out to meet it. “It was considered patriotic to smuggle because you were preventing funds from getting back to the British,” says Jennifer A. Gaudio, curator at the U.S. Coast Guard Museum at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn. Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter As part of his plan to reduce the nation’s debt, Hamilton federalized the nation’s lighthouses and called for ten ships known as “revenue cutters” to check out the cargo on ships heading to U.S. ports and make sure the goods they declared matched up with the items actually on board. The government hired ex-smugglers, who could spot the small boats used for the practice, and established a military-inspired system of ranks. Customs agents at the ports would report to the federal government how much money they collected periodically (though they could be bribed easily). The boats’ first major test came during the so-called “quasi-war” with France at the very end of the 18th century. “The French got annoyed that we weren’t paying [debts] back as fast as they wanted, and annoyed that we were trading with the British, which it was at war with,” Gaudio explains, “so French privateers were sent over to capture American merchant ships and keep them to recoup their losses. The only agency around to fight them was the revenue cutters service.” The U.S. did not end up going to war with France, but the expanded role of the seafaring service stuck. Nowadays, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection handles taxes and duties, but the requirements for the job that Hamilton spelled out in a letter for the service’s first officers — to be “prudent, moderate and good tempered” — have become a timeless mantra of sorts for current service members. “Officers will always keep in mind that their fellow citizens are free, and, as such are impatient of anything that bears the least mark of a domineering spirit,” reads a version edited for modern-day readers. “They should carefully refrain from anything resembling arrogance, rudeness or insult. They will strive to overcome difficulties by a cool and even-tempered perseverance in their duty.”