The UK government has flatly rejected calls by the President of Argentina for renewed negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, with Minister of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Stephen Doughty stating that no assessment of the implications was required.
Asked by Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty what assessment had been made of Argentine President Milei’s calls on 2 April 2026 for renewed sovereignty negotiations, Doughty said “no such assessment is required”, adding that “the UK’s steadfast support for the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination remains unchanged, and our position on sovereignty and the defence of the Falkland Islands remains equally steadfast and consistent.”
Argentina’s renewed calls come against a backdrop of a leaked internal Pentagon memo, first reported by Reuters, which suggested reassessing US diplomatic support for what it described as European “imperial possessions”, with the Falkland Islands explicitly mentioned alongside other potential measures to punish NATO allies who refused to grant access, basing and overflight rights for US operations against Iran. Downing Street responded by insisting the UK’s position on the Falklands was not going to change, with a spokesperson saying the question of sovereignty and the islanders’ right to self-determination was “not in question.”
Argentine President Javier Milei, a close ally of Donald Trump, said on Friday that his government was “doing everything humanly possible to return the Falklands to Argentina” and claimed to be making “unprecedented progress”, while his Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno said Argentina “once again expresses its willingness to resume bilateral negotiations with the United Kingdom that will allow for finding a peaceful and definitive solution to the sovereignty dispute.” The Falkland Islands government said it had “complete confidence in the commitment made by the UK Government to uphold and defend our right of self-determination.”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the US stance as “absolute nonsense”, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey calling for the King’s state visit to the United States to be cancelled, and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage saying he would raise the issue directly with Milei during a planned visit and that the status of the islands was “non-negotiable.” Admiral Lord West, who commanded HMS Ardent during the 1982 conflict, described any suggestion of reviewing the Falklands position as “an insult to its autonomous, self-reliant and free people.”
This is all bollocks dreamt up by Pete Hegseth to try and please Donald trump, the actual leaked document is about all European possessions in the Americas as well but the reality is that the US needs the Falkland islands as much as we do if not more because at some point it knows that it may need to prevent China entering the Atlantic and that Argentina will never be a US Allie and could easily switch to supporting China.
Simple fact is that Argentina even with US material support lacks the ability or will to invade the Falkland Islands and just as in 1982 when push comes to shove the vast majority of countries support the UK’s position on the islands.
Argentina also knows that the UK is in a far far more capable position than it was in 1982 to retake the islands with the ability to project large amount of air power and stand off deep strike capability that a country like Argentina has no answer to.
The Argentine president has made this clear as well.
And Ascension. Another “imperial possession” itself used by the US for NASA, and for surveillance and a GPS site.
Perhaps the US might want to vacate, then?
Agree, as the US just found out in Iran the UK’s network of global sovereign territories are far more useful to them than they are to the UK. Indeed this is one of the main reasons the UK retained all those islands around the world.
The US has no legal means of acquiring such bases as only the US Congress can add US territories and the adding of more sovereign territory is a violation of the UN charter which is also ratified by the US senate and is US law.
British territories allow the US to project power anywhere in the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and when combined with US pacific bases gives the USAF the ability to project power anywhere on the planet rapidly and without the need of their greatest enemy ( the US Navy) to get involved.
Those territories also allow the US to control satellites anywhere in space which is also a massive deal. China has to rely on a base in Argentina to control its space based assets which is not a sovereign location for them or a particular close Allie.
Jim, I served in the FI for a 6-month tour in 1999/2000. Beautiful islands and lovely people. You may be one of only a few who make the claim that ‘the UK is in a far far more capable position than it was in 1982 to retake the islands with the ability to project large amount of air power and stand off deep strike capability that a country like Argentina has no answer to’.
Most point to a reduction in many British capabilities since 1982.
In 1982 the RN deployed: 2 x carriers (28 Sea Harrier, 8 GR3 in total); 2 x LPD (each carryng 4 LCU and 4 LCVP); 8 x DD; 16 x FF; 1 x Ice Ptl ship; 2 x OPV: 6 x S/S (5 SSN, 1 SSK); 3 x Surv Vessels (as hospital ferry ships); 5 x minesweepers; at least 32 Sea King helos.
The RFA deployed 22 ships: 10 x oilers; 6 x LSLs; 5 x Sup ships; 1 x Helo Sp ship.
The RM AuxS deployed 2 ships.
62 Merchant ships were STUFT.
Granted that the capability of a given ship class has improved since that time, but in terms of numbers we could not match this effort.
Could the Royal Marines deploy a well-resourced and well-trained Bde HQ and three commando units with a full suite of supporting arms and services?
It is certainly true that the UK is in a far far more capable position than it was in 1982 to deter the Argentinians from invading the islands by virtue of much stronger in-situ forces.
However you mention our greater ‘ability to project large amount of air power and stand off deep strike capability’. I presume for the former you are referring to our ability to deploy at least 24 fifth gen stealth aircraft on a carrier. We have however lost our capability to conduct very long range strategic bombing since 1982.
The deep strike ability? Can we launch Storm Shadow from F-35B? Also, we are some years from having SPEAR3 integrated.
I would guess that If every US base they used outside the US were blocked, then the UK would be the number one again. ?
Soft power Is still Important.
US under Trump Is fast becoming a Pariah state, not sure how much more damage this bloke can do to foreign relations but time will tell I guess.
Time for an aircraft carrier + escorts + F35 aircraft to head to the South Atlantic as a show of strength. Soft power only goes so far before you need to remind potential adversaries about your capabilities!
I suggest sending a carrier to the south Atlantic would do the opposite. The UK should instead practice rapid role out of A2AD forces to our islands like Diego Garcia, Ascension and the Falkland Islands with air transport of a CAMM system and Wildcat helicopters for anti ship strike. Longer term we should enhance this capability to include ABM missiles and long range anti ship missile like STRATUS being land launched. As Iran is showing with its blockade of the straits, geography matters and the power of A2AD is only getting stronger with the development of drones, anti ship ballistic missiles and large satellite arrays easily able to track surface ships.
Such a force gives the UK the ability to shut down half the world’s oceans to an aggressor at any time and that can be done with existing forces for a small amount of money.
No time for action.
What’s the point of spending all this money on defence if you do not face down potential aggression when required.
What potential aggression? So far all there is, is a report on an email from someone in the pentagon. There has been no actions on it, no suggestion of a massive expansion of Argentina’ military, no threat to the island that wasn’t there before.
Ha, just like shortly before 1982 then !
No mate the signs were there the Govt just ignored them and gave the Argies hope we would not react!
The Argentinian government would like nothing more than to take the Falkland Islands from the UK. Reading the news the US is looking at no longer recognising the UK sovereignty of the islands which will be a green light to the Argentinian right wing government.
Not sure if you are old enough but there was no real indication of the FI invasion back in1982, so having the RN prepared and even a some ships on-route would be a strong signal to a potential or real threat.
Judging by how long it took the RN to ready HMS dragon to sail we are looking at several months to get a credible force together.
Our NATO colleagues (Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Poland) can look after the high north, arguably it more in their interests because they are closer to Russia than the UK.
Wildcat to defend FI is a good point actually. The best Argentine naval SAMs they have are old Aspides with a range of ~15km so Sea Venom would make mincemeat of any invasion force. Would also have use as a flying SAM battery were Argentina to procure Shahed style attack drones.
It’s difficult to keep reminding myself that our longest-ranged air launched anti ship weapon is only fired from small helicopters… MBDA need to hurry up with broadening the range of launch platforms.
I know we need to take the high ground and be the adult in this relationship but I do kind of wish that Starmer would hold a press conference and just scream “FUCK OFF YOU ORANGE BABOON”
The irony of being lectured on imperialism by Trump’s America…
Gareth, I agree. There has been obvious Imperial military actions undertaken by the Trump regime against Venezuela and Iran, and aggressive measures against Cuba. The latter gets little publicity here but the US implements strict sanctions and cuts off oil supplies, exacerbating Cuba’s economic crisis to force negotiations and potentially removing the current leadership under President Díaz-Canel.
There has been angry, and presumably serious, rhetoric about: incorporating Canada into the US; seizing Greenland by force if necessary; and seizing and operating the Panama Canal and a control strip on either side; and taking over the Gaza strip and turning it into a Trumpian holiday resort.
US history is quasi-Imperial. Many States were acquired by conquest or intimidation, an example being the ‘seizure’ of Hawaii from the indeginous ruling Queen of the islands. [In 1893 Queen Liliʻuokalani who headed a peaceful and effective constitutional monarchy was illegally deposed and placed under house arrest by US businessmen with ‘help’ from the U.S. Marines.The Republic of Hawaii governed for a short time until Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898 as the Territory of Hawaii. In 1959, the islands ‘became’ the 50th American state].
Some scrutiny should perhaps also be cast about the acquisition of US Territories, Dependencies and ‘Areas of Special Sovereignty’. The US has an overseas Empire – they are Imperialists!
Perversely perhaps we should learn a lesson from the Americans. Let the Falkland Islands ‘become’ an integral part of the UK, defining it as a county or affiliated to an English county and to have their own MP.
The thought that America would assist the Argentinian forces to lay claim to the Falklands is the stuff of fiction, and less-than-professional behaviour from the White House staff just makes the whole situation dafter. For the USA to declare war on the UK over the South Atlantic islands may just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back within the corridors of power in Washington. Imagine what Dwight Eisenhower would have made of such stupidity; however, we only have to put up with Trump’s nonsense until November’s midterm elections before a large stick is thrown through the orange man’s bicycle front wheel, and it can’t come quick enough for the World.
Yes agree, imagine the stock market reaction in the USA if it suddenly declared war on its nuclear armed closets Allie that just also happens to be its second biggest creditor and it’s doing this to prop up one if the least friendly countries to the USA.
How do you defend the US against Russia when your entire ballistic missile warning picture suddenly turns off.
People keep mentioning that the UK couldn’t retake the Falklands like we did back in 82, however what they always fail to mention is that we wouldn’t even loose the Falklands now. The forces that are stationed there now are a lot more lethal and beefier that Argentina wouldn’t have a chance of taking them.
Thanks N/Alliance. On the British Army’s infantry side, I do think there is a case for perhaps stationing there more than a 110-strong infantry company with light weapons though!
Isn’t that what 16 Air Assault Brigade are for?
We could definitely beef it up more, just the way some contributors to this site act they make it sound like our total defence for the Falklands is a do not enter sign.
Tend to agree. I note that the Voyager in the Falklands has been temporarily withdrawn, so that’s an issue for QRA. But realistically the Argentine Navy can’t deploy, and Argentine F-16s with no A2A refuelling would have no ability to make it to the Falklands and fight. Existing defences plus the ability to rapidly move men and materiel via air to Mount Pleasant, plus the significant stores of materiel already there, should make the idea of an Argentine amphibious assault pretty much impossible
What about some land based anti ship missiles such as the Naval Strike Missile, Poland is currently buying a land based version.
This from an America that has grabbed land from Mexico and displaced the native Indians on their own continent 🙄perhaps they should explore options about returning territories stolen!
If you can tell me how Argentina can maintain an air threat in the face of submarines launched TLAM and how it could overcome even a small F35 force then I’ll agree that we are in a worse shape than 82. We also have with just the three bays and two QE a much bigger amphibious capability than we had in 82. We would have less escorts but the ones that we did send would be vastly more capable. Two T45, Two 23 and one Astute would be all that’s required.
Once onshore the army has Apache, CAMM and MLRS. These are capabilities we could not dream of in 82.
I agree, so get the force assembled and ready to sail to FI. It will take months to assemble looking at how long it took to prepare HMS Dragon for the Eastern Mediterranean.
From my experience you only find out what your capabilities and deficiencies are when to assemble the forces and deploy them.
The Falklands are are for the foreseeable future regarding Trump and his antics and the low level Argentine threat! However the real threat is Starmer and his puppet master Hermer, both UK hating Socialists who have a track history of stitching up and screwing over both serving and ex military personnel, wiry an ideological dislike of British history. See the current revelations regarding Hermer and the Al-Sweady inquiry.
Should read are safe for the foreseeable future!
Making noises about the Fslklands is a known vote winner in Argentina.
Making noises about the Falklands is a known wind up in Washington.
Making noises about Britain’s military capabilities is a known willing the mission but not the means in Westminster/Whitehall.
This is the reality regarding the entire British Army:
‘I can absolutely assure the Committee that we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades—16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade Combat Team, and an armoured brigade—but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there and our ability to sustain it for time.’
General Sir Patrick Sanders
That’s it…with gaps in getting it there or sustaining it.
Recapture The Falklands today? Forget it…