Christen is a lawyer, a senior officer in the Navy Reserve JAG Corps, a seminarian, and a member of an independent Critical Connections team catalyzing inter-movement community and capacity building among democracy and civic health-promoting organizations to achieve collective impact. All stated opinions are his own and do not represent the positions of the U.S. Navy.
This is the fourth in a series of articles analyzing how the democracy ecosystem can prepare to support and facilitate a mass movement.
On March 31, 2022, not long after Russia invaded Ukraine, attendees at a Unite America Brewer Fellows reception were asked to discuss how partner nations were able to respond so quickly and effectively to help Ukraine. The conclusion was that the relationships that had been formed between Ukraine and partner nations through joint capacity building and rehearsed interoperability enabled them to be prepared for the invasion.
The question then is how can these lessons learned from Ukraine be applied to promoting democracy and civic health in the U.S.?
While threats to American democracy are less obvious than a potential Russian invasion, the American political and social environment is constantly changing in often unforeseeable ways, leading to both crises and opportunities. As a result, the advice of legendary UCLA men’s basketball coach, John Wooden, is salient: “You must proceed with the knowledge that unforeseen events will occur and the absolute belief that some of those unanticipated occurrences will provide opportunity…if opportunity comes and you are not prepared, it may not come again.”
Pre-Existing Relationships
Since 2012, I served with and for NATO and partner militaries for approximately five years in Italy, Afghanistan, and Bahrain. Despite U.S.’ relationships at the highest political levels with NATO and Ukraine being fairly tumultuous during this time period, I never saw the polemical political environment degrade daily collaborations at the staff level. Members of the Department of Defense, the State Department, and various other U.S. agencies were consistently building relationships and working closely and developing joint capacity with partner nation counterparts.
Because of the numerous conversations, meals, collaborations, and shared experiences they already had, effective working relationships across countries and staff levels were in place well before the crisis. As a result, when Russia invaded, staff neither needed to frantically search for points of contact and their contact information nor introduce themselves for the first time.
These pre-established relationships should have significantly decreased countries’ response time while positively contributing to the overall effectiveness of their response to aid Ukraine.
Pre-established relationships can similarly impact the preparedness of the inter-movement community of democracy and civic health-promoting movements. Analogous to Ukraine’s partner states, the inter-movement community has numerous independent yet interdependent fields or “neighborhoods,” like structural reform, bridging divides, and civic education to name a few. At a recent inter-movement community forum, Todd Connor, co-Founder and CEO of Veterans for Political Innovation, insightfully observed that “the right time to build the coalition is before you need the coalition.” Said another way, meaningful, cross-neighborhood relationships must be established in advance of democracy’s next crisis or opportunity.
The challenge, however, is that awareness of other neighborhoods and their efforts is first needed to grasp the opportunity potential of cross-neighborhood relationships.
As discussed in a previous article, a critical mass of at least 12 million Americans is required to transform American democracy. Once the critical mass is achieved, the next challenge is maintaining it long enough to enable societal diffusion of pro-democracy norms and to coerce or co-opt political power brokers to enact policy change.
If the inter-movement community is unable to coalesce and cohesively facilitate the actions of the critical mass quickly enough, then momentum can quickly dissipate, sliding citizen participation back below the tipping point. While making ad hoc, cross-neighborhood connections is theoretically possible, pre-existing relationships increase the likelihood that the inter-movement community can coalesce before momentum is lost. Since research has found immense value in weak connections, not all relationships have to be particularly strong or intense, they just have to be formed.
While more cross-neighborhood relationships are being established every day, insufficient relationships currently exist to enable rapid, cohesive mobilization of the inter-movement community.
A second takeaway from Ukraine is that relationships between leaders are good but meaningful cross-organizational and cross-neighborhood relationships across all organizational levels is better. Relationships between staffs are often the glue between organizations and neighborhoods. Egos, personality conflicts, pressures from stakeholders, and the transitory nature of individuals lowers the likelihood of effective activation of community relationships in times of crisis or opportunity if all relationship-building eggs are put into the leader’s basket. In other words, leaders should encourage staff to develop relationships too and not attempt to own all organizational relationship-building.
Joint Capabilities and Practiced Interoperability
Partner nations were also able to quickly provide support to Ukraine because they had meaningfully worked together before. Prior to the invasion, NATO, Ukraine, and partners collaborated in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and frequent joint exercises – essentially a combination of inter-country scenario based planning and simulated joint tactics rehearsal – together.
As a result, participating countries had opportunities to develop joint capabilities and to practice and assess interoperability (the ability to work together across countries or other units of organizing). They were able to learn how to effectively work as a cohesive team and communicate with each other, including overcoming cultural, linguistic, and technical challenges. Additionally, they should have identified individual and combined strengths and weaknesses, thereby enabling finding solutions to vulnerabilities before the invasion.
With established joint capabilities and rehearsed interoperability, NATO and partner countries were better prepared to know what Ukraine lacked, to listen to what Ukraine wanted, and to coordinate assistance.
Although the threats and opportunities are different, the inter-movement community must similarly start by developing interoperability capabilities, such as funding for joint efforts and platforms for communicating, de-conflicting and coordinating efforts, and co-amplifying unified strategic messaging.
The inter-movement community must then practice collaborating using these interoperability capabilities. In a perfect world, the inter-movement community would host a large-scale, scenario-based simulation analogous to a joint military exercise to practice and assess interoperability. Barring that, cross-neighborhood efforts can be strategically designed to similarly practice and assess interoperability, which, Connor observes, is when organizations “discover who their important partners will be.”
Preparedness Breeds Resilience
The lack of preparedness for the pandemic by many governments and organizations revealed the importance of resilience – the "capacity to absorb stress, recover critical functionality, and thrive in altered circumstances."Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was somewhat foreseeable, a future president's attempt to dissolve congress akin to what recently happened in Peru, the coalescence of the “ missing mass pro-democracy movement,” the sudden pooled donation of $20 billion to strengthen American democracy, or any other unforeseeable, game-changing circumstance could occur any time. Practiced adaptability, goal and activity embeddedness, collaboration, pre-established relationships, rehearsed interoperability, and joint capabilities will prepare the inter-movement community to not just respond but to collectively thrive in any unforeseen situation like this.
Fortunately, collective preparedness is no less valuable even if these extreme scenarios do not happen. How much more effective is a local campaign to change democratic structures or reduce polarization when organizations across several neighborhoods are able to rapidly pool their expertise and resources? When the inter-movement community is prepared for collective impact, the entire ecosystem becomes more effective at everything.
In the words of George R.R. Martin, we are the knights of summer, and winter (or opportunity) is coming. Now is the time to prepare. Feel free to email Christen here to discuss how you can promote preparedness.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.