We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

“Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah, Iran’s supreme leader says from hiding”

OK, that headline from 11:45am has been superseded by Hezbollah’s admission that Nasrallah is indeed dead, but props to the Telegraph‘s headline-writer.

There are people who appear upset by badges of bravery

In my second country of Malta, which I visit regularly, it is hard to miss the fact that the island’s national flag bears the George Cross. The GC was awarded, collectively, to the island during the Second World War by the British government because of how Malta had withstood the bombardments of Italian and German air forces. The bombing of the island from 1941-43 was greater in total than the ordnance hurled at London during the Blitz. Malta was a major British naval base: it was able to intercept and destroy Axis shipping to North Africa and hence was key in tipping the scales against Rommel’s Afrika Korps in its attempted invasion of Egypt. Malta mattered.

It appears today, in these “decolonisation” times, that some of the citizens of Malta – a country sadly tainted by issues such as corruption and the murder of an investigative journalist in 2017 – want the GC symbol to be removed.

On a Facebook page that I follow, a person (who will remain nameless), put up this comment:

If we really and truly want to celebrate this important milestone [Maltese independence], all we need to do is remove that stain from our national flag and send that bloodstained cross to Buckingham Palace. I will volunteer to act as a courier pro bono.

I was glad to see that the vast majority of responses from the locals were hostile to this person, if not enlightening.

I tried to raise the tone a bit, because the person concerned might be stupid as a bag of rocks, but it is good to put these points into places where someone might pick up on them:

I sort of understand why people who live in Malta today think that a British person (although with scores of Maltese relatives, British navy ancestors, and the rest of it) should not be talking about these things. People can be prickly about someone from abroad talking about their country.

But history is what it is: Malta was a naval and military base coveted by great powers from the dawn of time. Hitler and Mussolini would have tried to take it over and subdue it; neutrality on the Swiss model wasn’t likely and even the Swiss would have been forced to go along with terrible things eventually as a price. (And the Swiss, to their shame, later became known for shielding money looted from Jewish people.) Malta’s position in the central Med was vital for control of the sea. A successful Allied liberation of Italy/southern Europe, launched from the sea, would have required a base such as that of Malta to be in friendly hands. We can see what happens when a place chooses neutrality as in the case of the Republic of Ireland. It massively hampered the ability of the British to counter German U-boat attacks in the eastern Atlantic shipping lanes, costing thousands of lives and loss of material.

What sort of things about the war are taught in Malta today, if at all? As a journalist of 36 years’ professional experience, working around the world, and a student of history, it strikes me as interesting to know how many people think that the symbol of the George’s Cross is somehow a stain on the Maltese flag, rather than a symbol of honour and supreme courage.

I can recommend Sir Max Hastings’ book about the Operation Pedestal convoy as a good study about what was at stake in the Mediterranean campaign.

Here is a decent history of Malta for those who are interested.

Paging Hezbollah…

The Guardian reports,

Scores of Hezbollah members hurt in Lebanon after pagers explode

Scores of members of the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, including fighters and medics,

Oh, the poor Hezbollah medics!

were seriously wounded on Tuesday when the pagers they use to communicate exploded, a security source told Reuters.

A Hezbollah official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the detonation of the pagers was the “biggest security breach” the group had been subjected to in nearly a year of war with Israel.

A Reuters journalist saw ambulances rushing through the southern suburbs of the capital, Beirut, amid widespread panic. People said explosions were taking place even 30 minutes after the initial blasts.

I feel that this development deserves to be commemorated in period style.

Edit: It is now being claimed that a ten year old girl, Fatima Jaafar Abdullah, was killed by one of the exploding pagers. If true (and despite Hezbollah, like Hamas, being inveterate liars who regularly fake the deaths of children, it might well be true that she was handling her Hezbollah father’s pager or something similar), that is tragic. But overall one of the things about this operation that fills me with admiration is that it must be one of the most precisely targeted military strikes in history. Targeted to the very hip pockets of individual terrorists. Oh, and it would have been nice if a few more of the people denouncing Israel for this had also denounced Hezbollah for firing rockets at Israel completely indiscriminately for years on end. Only a few weeks ago, twelve Israeli Druze children were “shredded to pieces” by a Hezbollah rocket while playing soccer.

Siege of Vienna ends – 12 September 1683

Samizdata quote of the day – important but not important

And yet, once the Ukrainians ask for long-range fires, all of a sudden their importance is downgraded and minimized. There was the widely-discussed piece in Foreign Affairs by Stephen Biddle which recently kick-started this argument—but it was an argument greatly amplified by Defense Secretary Austin a few days ago.

During the latest Ramstein meeting of Ukraine’s partners in Germany Austin basically said long-range fires were not that important. As it was relayed by PBS:

After the talks, Austin pushed back on the idea that long-range strikes would be a game-changer.

“I don’t believe one capability is going to be decisive and I stand by that comment,” Austin said. The Ukrainians have other means to strike long-range targets, he said.

Its hard to know what to make of that extraordinary claim. Is he saying that the US Army’s number 1 priority for modernization is not nearly that important? That would be bold of him—but more than likely he is desperately searching around for an argument because he knows just how important long-range fires are in war.

Phillips P. OBrien (£)

Samizdata quote of the day – Hezbollah and Lebanon are not Hamas and Gaza

Striking Hezbollah is a very low-risk proposition compared to striking targets in Gaza or Iran.

Every single Gaza strike brought the possibility of mass casualties, but in Gaza, this was a feature, not a bug for HAMAS. HAMAS needs civilian casualties because they cannot win a fight against Israel. The world must be so horrified that they end the conflict with a cease-fire and a cease-fire means a HAMAS win.

However, civilians in southern Lebanon can flee north, which is something that cannot be done by residents of Gaza. This makes Hezbollah a much more attractive target and reduces the amount of propaganda that can be released by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is in a bad situation and they are starting to realize that Iran is not coming to help them.

Ryan McBeth

What is going on with Ukraine and Russia

I came across this Substack essay by someone called Mick Ryan about the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region of Russia, a move that seems to have taken Moscow completely by surprise:

This Ukrainian operation represents a very significant effort on the part of the Ukrainians to reset the status quo in the war, and change narratives about Ukraine prospects in this war.

It is the kind of strategic risk-taking that I don’t think is well understood in many Western capitals anymore. For nearly two generations now, Western nations have been able to cut military spending. None of them have faced existential threats, even though the War on Terror did require a significant response for more than a decade after 9/11.

The slow decision-making cycles in Western military and political circles, and in military procurement, is indicative of institutions that no longer understand the imperative to act quickly and decisively while taking major risks.

This is not the case for the Ukrainians. They have faced an existential threat since February 2022 (and more broadly, for the entirety of their existence as a people) and have a very different political and military decision-making calculus than those of their supporters. A nation and a people who face an existential risk from their neighbour tend to think differently from those who do not.

He will plan no more murders

Top Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Iran, reports the BBC.

It is particularly good that Israel killed Haniyeh while he was staying in Iran to attend the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Let all know that Iran cannot protect its proxies.

The BBC continues in its usual style:

Widely regarded as a pragmatist, Haniyeh was said to have maintained good relations with other rival Palestinian groups.

Here is a short video clip of Haniyeh pragmatically celebrating the October 7th massacres.

Samizdata quote of the day – Why is it only ‘escalation’ when Israel retaliates?

The foreign ministers of Australia, Japan, India and the US issued a joint statement after the massacre, saying ‘We underscore the need to prevent the conflict from escalating’. Likewise, Britain’s foreign secretary, David Lammy, has said ‘we are deeply concerned about the risk of further escalation’. These are warnings to Israel, aren’t they? These powerhouses of Western diplomacy, with their noisy teeth-gnashing over ‘escalation’, are essentially telling Israel to chill out. Indeed, one US security analyst told the Guardian that ‘the most pressing task for US officials’ is to ‘delay any Israeli retaliation’ in order that we might ‘achieve de-escalation’. Relax, Israel – it’s only 12 kids.

Brendan O’Neill

Samizdata quote of the day – unserious or unstable people are thick in the natsec arena in election years

In the end, what I would offer to anyone on either side of the Atlantic who thinks a new Trump administration would yeet the USA out of NATO on a whim is this; get out more. Actually talk to people on the natsec right. Get out of your intellectually onanistic terrariums. And for the sake of your larger credibility and sanity – do not think the America you read about in the NYT/WaPo and their derivatives, especially in an election year, is a reflection of the full reality.

Read broadly. Seek out a contrary opinion. Have reasonable discussions of substance. Don’t assume anyone who disagrees with you on policy is evil and the absolute worst version of their enemies’ caricature.

In the end, we all want the same thing, don’t we? Keep America in, the Russia out, and France & Germany down.

CDR Salamander

Nigel Farage’s Ukraine war views and the blame game

“However, the implication that a country seeking a Western-focused future can be construed as having brought its fate upon itself because of the assailant’s paranoia is an odd argument to be advanced by a champion of national sovereignty. The Russian bear may well have been poked, but history has taught us that despotic dictators cannot be appeased.”

An editorial in the Daily Telegraph (£) today. The author is bemused by Reform leader Nigel Farage’s continued assertion that someone (NATO/EU/West/insert as desired) are to blame for encouraging Putin to invade a sovereign nation state. As the leader writer observes later on, it seems rather curious that a champion of national sovereignty, as Mr Farage claims to be, should regard Ukraine as little more than buffer defence terrain for Russia, and that its own diplomatic ambitions as a nation should be dismissed. I find it more than a little odd, and it is one of the reasons I won’t vote Reform on 4 July.

Perry de Havilland wrote back when Russia invaded Ukraine that there is, on the Right as much as much of the Left, a curious desire to make things like wars to be always matters that are about us, which in a way also denies moral agency and choice to actors in many countries around the world. This is a reflexive thing, and ironically, often held by people who claim to hold hard-headed realist views on foreign policy, and yet there is a sort of naivete to it, in my view.

He wants the state to impose National Service but does not trust the state’s own systems to do it

“Teenagers could lose bank accounts and driving licences for snubbing national service, Rishi Sunak says”

Despite everything, I will vote Conservative in this election, because my local MP is Kemi Badenoch, of whom I approve. But what a silly party the Tories have become.

I had my say about their proposal to reinstate conscription a month ago in this post: “A press gang there I chanced to meet”. I am honestly amazed that the proposal is still alive as anything other than a guaranteed laugh line for Radio Four comedians. It seems I was wrong: the prime minister still maintains this is something he will do after his surprise election victory. OK, let’s run with that. If he thinks that it would be a good thing for the state to compel British youth to spend a year in the army or “volunteering” (yes, they really do call it that) in the community, why does he evidently not trust the legal mechanisms of compulsion that the state evolved over centuries to enforce it?

Taking away people’s driving licence is an arbitrary punishment. For one young draft-dodger living in the country it might come as a disaster, for another convicted of the same crime but living in a major city with good public transport, it would be no more than a mild inconvenience. A young person who could not drive in the first place would laugh in the faces of the enforcers. Did we not once have some sort of legal system to iron out inconsistencies like that?

Another thing, I could have sworn we used to have this idea that a driving licence was issued when a person had demonstrated he or she could safely operate a motor vehicle on the public highway, and could be revoked only if that person drove dangerously. If it can be revoked for offences that have nothing to do with driving, trust in the whole system of licensing is damaged.