Jamison is a retired attorney who writes on military affairs and other issues.
Following Joseph Stalin’s March 1953 death, Marshal Giorgi Zhukov, the brilliant leading Soviet general in the defeat of Germany in World War II, waited nervously in secret with other Soviet senior officers in the room next to where the meeting of the Presidium was in progress at the Kremlin in June 1953. Zhukov and the others knew that if Lavrentiy Beria ’s Kremlin guards discovered them, they would be killed.
The marshal was in league with Nikita Khrushchev, then a high-ranking party official. The future Soviet premier enlisted the regular army’s support for his conspiracy with other leaders to prevent Beria, the longtime head of an army of secret police, state security troops, and the Kremlin Guard, from taking power.
Beria had tortured Soviet officers in the 1930s to make false accusations against other officers. This in turn led Stalin to purge and kill senior Soviet officers, the shortage of which nearly lost the War in 1941. Crueler than Stalin, Beria cruised the streets of Moscow with his guards to abduct, rape and sometimes murder girls.
Beria expected the Presidium meeting to cement his succession. To ensure this, he moved some of his security forces into Moscow. Great stealth would be essential to overcome the forces that Beria controlled.
Zhukov and his colleagues were secretly whisked into the Kremlin under the noses of Beria’s troops. The conspirators then kept the officers concealed in the adjoining room, where they awaited a secret signal to enter the Presidium meeting room.
At the right moment in the Presidium meeting, the signal brought Zhukov into the room to arrest a stunned Beria. Without stirring his guards, Beria was immediately removed from the Kremlin, his buttons cut from his pants so that he had to hold them up with his hands, hindering any attempt to run. Beria was later tried by a special court, found guilty of treason, terrorism and counter-revolutionary activities and sentenced to death. Zhukov’s forces corralled the spy chief’s troops; Khrushchev was now in position to become party leader.
This is how power transitioned in the Soviet Union. Unless the Russian people and sufficient forces in the military break from the country’s long history of autocracy and successfully establish a Western-style democracy, it will also likely be how power transitions when Putin is either removed or dies.
Putin has a personal Kremlin Guard, controls the Presidential Security Service, and maintains a hold on the FSB, which is akin to the security forces that Beria controlled.
The Russian Army (lacking a general of the caliber of Zhukov) is another power center. Then there are the 50,000 some-odd troops of the Wagner Group, which recently made worldwide headlines for its abortive mutiny. Conspiracy, violence and murder can likely be expected as the leaders of these forces vie for succession.
Nearly 250 years ago, America’s founders were intimately familiar with the murderous history of dictatorships up to their time. Their studies of Rome’s greatest politician, Cicero, and of the collapse of the Republic in the first century B.C., heavily influenced the Constitution’s design.
Cicero waged a long futile effort to preserve and improve the constitution of the Roman Republic. He sought to reform the excessive number of checks and balances in that constitution that hindered effective government. The deadlocks and confusion under that constitution were instrumental in the Roman Republic’s descent into chaos, violence, Cicero’s murder and dictatorship.
The American Constitution was designed to minimize the risk of the kinds of violent power transfers that would later become the norm in the Soviet Union. James Madison defined tyranny as the executive, legislative, and judicial powers all being in the hands of one person or group. In creating three branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — to curb one another’s power, the U.S. Constitution lays out the optimal combination of checks and balances that are supposed to prevent tyranny but not throttle effective government. They also limited the terms of the president and members of Congress and required them regularly to face the voters. Fundamentally, the armed forces was placed under the control of a civilian president, but the military’s oath is to the American Constitution, not to one person. George Washington cemented the tradition of peaceful transitions of power when he declined a third term and graciously greeted John Adams on inauguration day.
America’s founders knew that this was an experiment. It depended on and still depends on compromise and unity, which if lost can lead to deadlock, chaos and collapse.
In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington cautioned: “Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, …The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.”
Americans who would accept dictatorship do not know history and their own government. The scourge of dictatorship must never stain America.
The oath of the American military to the Constitution, not to a person, is essential to help prevent the rise of a dictator “on the ruins of public liberty.”
This writing was originally published in on July 12, 2023 in the Military History Now.




















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.