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.