During his visit to the Falkland Islands, Minister for the Armed Forces Luke Pollard reaffirmed the UK’s unwavering commitment to the security and prosperity of the territory.

Pollard’s trip, which marked the first visit by a Minister from the new government and the first Defence Minister to visit since 2022, served to strengthen the bond between the UK and the islands.

The visit included a Remembrance Sunday ceremony, where Pollard laid a wreath in tribute to the 255 British service personnel who lost their lives during the 1982 Falklands conflict.

In a statement, Minister Pollard spoke of the UK’s steadfast support for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, as well as the ongoing commitment to securing peace and stability in the South Atlantic region.

“The UK’s commitment to the Falkland Islands’ security and economic prosperity is as strong as ever—from protecting the region’s incredible wildlife to upholding the island’s right of self-determination,” Pollard said. “I am honoured to have been able to join islanders and service personnel as they commemorated those who sacrificed so much to protect the Falklands.”

As part of his visit, Pollard met with service personnel stationed on the islands, highlighting the UK’s substantial military presence there. The UK continues to maintain a robust defence footprint, with personnel across land, sea, and air. Pollard visited HMS Forth, the Royal Navy ship that patrols the sovereign waters of the Falklands, and met with the crew to discuss their vital role in regional security.

The ship plays a crucial part in operations including reassurance, search and rescue, and maritime security, alongside the work of the Royal Air Force’s 905 Expeditionary Air Wing, which operates four Typhoon jets on Quick Reaction Alert to safeguard Falkland airspace.

The British military’s role on the islands is further reinforced by the 2 Royal Gurkha Regiment, with around 100 troops stationed on the islands as part of the British Forces South Atlantic Islands’ forward presence.

The continued presence of UK forces, say the MOD, is a clear demonstration of the UK’s strategic commitment to maintaining regional stability, ensuring the safety of the Falklands, and supporting the islanders’ autonomy.


At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

40 COMMENTS

    • Really! Since when do British politicians keep their promises?

      We have a commitment to them……until the Labour government decides we need to heed to certain international opinions and one of Starmer’s mates is high up in the Argentinian leadership.

      • The govt cannot do sod all except withdrawing without the agreement of the islanders! They cannot just hand them to the argies as the islanders have the right of self determination and that is recognised in the UN.

          • Not really it was moving through the process of giving the islanders self-determination etc. a normal prelude to handing sovereignty to the islanders. The Islanders have self determination without being responsible for their own defence – quite sensible really.

          • there is some very good evidence that the UK government and Argentinian government between 1962 and 1982 had a number of discussions around how the UK government could get rid of the Falklands, the Thatcher government even came up with the idea of giving up sovereignty on the proviso that the UK government leased the islands back to allow a multi generational transition and it all came to a nasty head in dec 1980 Look up the Ridley initiative..there are some great great speaches on Hansard through the late 1980 and early 1981 showing how pissed off the commons and lords were with the thatcher government in regards to its back channels and wider messaging about the Falklands..lord Buxton of Alsa did a fine and well thought out speech in 1981, that is worth a read. But in summary the whole thing was described well in one report:

            ”The House of Commons came together in total concord yesterday to voice its deep suspicion of the intentions of the Foreign Office and of Mr Nicholas Ridley, a Minister of State, for the future of the Falkland Islands and their relationship with the Argentine. 
            Seldom can a minister have had such a drubbing from all sides of the House, and Mr Ridley was left in no doubt that whatever Machiavellian intrigues he and the Foreign Office may be up to, they will come to nothing if they involve harming a hair on the heads of the islanders. 
            The minister was left stammering and confused as in vain he protested that nothing would be done and no arrangement would be agreed with Argentina that had not been first endorsed both by the islanders and by Parliament. 
            Mr Ridley, who has just returned from a visit to the Falklands, could, not have received a colder welcome.”

            It was only after Argentina took military action that the British government got a spine over the Falklands and Argentinas actions cemented the Falklands as part of the UK for generations to come.

          • pretty much, there was the incident were Terry Peck followed Nicholas Ridley around in Land Rover fitted with loudspeakers when Ridley went to the Falklands to try to sell the deal to them

          • It was more to do with the govt (Notts) proposed defence cuts and the withdrawal of Endurance,they doubted our commitment to the islands and tried it on.

          • No a committee had a resolution stating that the UK/Agentina should talk about their dispute. The UK position is there is nothing to talk about as the Falklands has never been part of Argentina. Indeed the Falklands has been under British control since the time Argentina came into existance. Besides under the 1960 UN Convention the islanders have the right to self determination.

        • 1960. Resolution 1514 (XV) proclaims the necessity of bringing colonialism in all its forms and manifestations to a speedy and unconditional end and declares that all people have a right to self-determination.

          In reality this is the flip side of collonialism – we now need to defend the Islands against all aggressors until such time as the Falkland Islanders wish to have sovereignty. Might be a long time.

          In theory though the Government could, as a sovereign nation, do whatever it pleases. Can’t see it doing anything however bar perhaps asking the islanders to have yet another pointless referendum.

    • Argentina has a lot to play with should it want to … start harassing Falkland’s oil production, sail close to oil platforms, harrass vessels involved … force the UK to increase its naval presence in order to support this “climate destroying” activity (stress that theme constantly in the media, get the Guardian and the BBC really worked up, along with the Labour left!) … then see how long Labour’s support remains “unwavering”

    • Diego Garcia is a very different situation anyway, it’s not comparable to the Falklands. Only the right wing bash labour with any excuse brigade insist on twisting it that way.

      • The Conservatives started the process of handing the islands over, labour the finished it. It’s not party polictical as they both were aiming to do the same thing. Something the Conservative supporting media seem to have forgotten to report.

  1. Let’s send QE or PW to have a sail round the islands for a week or two that should smooth things over with the Argentina government 🤗 🇬🇧

    • They are kicking off about x1 Voyager x1 A400 and x3 Typhoon landing at Rio the other day, I can only imagine the reaction to a full on UKCSG deploying..

  2. 100 troops is that it? I thought it was a 500+ regiment that went each time.
    I was sure it was said there was 1500 forces people there at anytime.

    • No. An Infantry Company goes there on rotation.
      There are, but that includes a lot of support units not just teeth arms.
      Do you wish to have a breakdown?

    • I’ll give one anyway as I’m at home.

      HQ BFSAI ( Tri ) ( Includes JOC )
      Resident Infantry Company.
      Resident AD Fire Group ( There are 2 Fire Groups per 4 Batteries of 16 RA, the FI and the Polish commitment is taken by 1 of those Batteries )
      FI Support Unit. ( PM Sqn, Regional MC, JEC )
      FI Joint Logistic Unit.
      JCU Falkland Islands.
      JS P&SU.
      JS EODU.
      460 Port Troop RLC.
      FIGS HMS Forth.
      905 EAW
      CRC ( 303 SU )
      Ops Wing.
      Admin Wing.
      1312 Flight. ( 1 Voyager, 1 Atlas )
      1435 Flight. ( Typhoon )
      Mt Kent RP.
      Mt Alice RP.
      Byron Heights RP.
      Det Superintendent FM Portsmouth.
      DD SAI.
      DHFCS Mocho Pond
      DHFCS Bush Rincon
      JSSU FI.
      Plus FIDF.

      Added to this is of course the minor elements on Ascension that enable the links between the UK and the Falklands.

      You’re welcome.

    • Yep, surprised me also, only around 100 infantry but total forces around 1500 once you include the 3 services that all have personal on the island.

    • No, where do you get that notion from?
      It has never been a 500-strong battalion down there. As far back as as I can remember the Infantry presence is a Roulemont Infantry Company (RIC) of 110, armed with light weapons, who do 6 months. I was there in 1999/2000. The RIC then was provided by the Ghurkas. Worth saying that the local militia, the FIDF, is also an infantry company in the light role.

      Total personnel count, I thought, was about 1200 UK military. That is tri-service of course.
      Relatively few of those personnel are Combat Arm (Teeth Arm), to use army parlance.

  3. I don’t think Argentina would try, but Ukraine changes things. Argentina could copy the tactics and take out the river and the typhoons with cheap drones and then just sail over with civilian crafts.

    Holding them would be difficult with a carrier now being available but equally with 3 carriers the view was it would be almost impossible for the uk to win in 82 and practically a lot of luck went their way.

    Luckily Argentina is more stable now and isn’t interested in a war and even if they were their forces would need some rebuilding first.

    • Just drop it in the media that a sub has been sent to secure the waters round the islands. The argies remember Belgrano very clearly…They will stay at home.

      • They also remember that hms conquerer kept losing track on a massive crusier.

        Where there is a will there will be a way, for example using a large number of smaller ships to get troops across instead of larger easier to deal with traditional military vessels. World has changed, I suspect swarm style approaches will be used across the board. The US is already concerned its invested too much into single large platforms.

        But again I don’t think there is any serious risks of them attacking currently as they have a fairly stable goverment.

      • One battery isn’t going to do much against a swarm of drones. There are multiple batteries around Kyiv and yet they keep getting through.

        Most of nato has realised their air defences are woefully unprepared for the new threat and investing in additional units, let’s hope the uk does in the SDSR.

          • I’ve heard 6.
            So 3 in FI, 3 per FG.
            So 24 in 16RA.
            I’ve also read each Battery had been expanded by 100 posts so hope more launchers will be acquired.

    • Even if Argentina recaptured the islands it could never keep them. A single carrier with F35s would be enough to get air superiority. Not to mention our SSNs….

      • Getting air superiority doesn’t win anything, ground troops are needed to retake.

        SSN would however make resupply harder, but equally starving the island risks the locals also, so a blockade would be difficult.

  4. The Falkland Islanders themselves are the biggest single factor on whether the Islands and associated Dependancies remain under British Sovereignty. Thankfully they are a lot more trustworthy than any UK Government whatever the Colour. Plus they don’t suffer from selective memory loss like all Governments Do. I believe the last there sentiment was tested in a poll the result was 98% in favour. So Trust the Islanders!!!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here