Argentinian President Javier Milei used his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York on Wednesday (24 Sep) to relaunch his country’s bid for sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Calling them the Islas Malvinas, he said during a fiery speech that ‘I wish to reiterate our legitimate claim in terms of sovereignty over the Malvinas and the surrounding maritime areas that continue to be illegally occupied’.
This article is the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
We of a certain age, old enough to remember such things, heaved yet another sigh of déjà vu. Haven’t we all been here before, and comparatively recently?
Those of you of tender years may not remember the Falklands War of 1982, when Argentina invaded and occupied this British Overseas Territory (BOT) and were then expelled again by the British military in a campaign lasting no more than 72 days. Casualties were high – 649 Argentinian dead, 255 British, and three Falkland Islanders.
British sovereignty was restored in what many still regard as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s finest hour, and then confirmed by a referendum on political status when the Falkland islanders were asked to vote on whether or not they supported the continuation of their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. An overwhelming 99.8% voted to stay with Britain.
So why has Milei returned to the fray again, and why now? I think there are three main reasons.
The first of these is that his government is in trouble. Argentina has one of the highest year-on-year inflation rates in the world, while a large proportion of the population lives below the poverty line. On top of this, the President’s sister Karina Milei, a prominent figure in her brother’s government, is caught up in a corruption scandal including financial kickbacks and alleged cryptocurrency bribery, all of which has scared off investors. It may well be that Milei will be forced to seek to be bailed out by the IMF.
Against such a background it’s the oldest trick in the book to focus people’s attention on foreign affairs. And the second treason is that the UK in the form of PM Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy is seen as a soft touch. Starmer’s unwarranted surrender of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and his grandstanding recognition of the “state of Palestine” has persuaded many that the British government is weak and vulnerable to diplomatic bullying and persuasion, and Milei is taking advantage of this.
And the third main reason, and the one least spoken about, is that the Falklands – which have hitherto generated the majority of their revenue from fishing – may be on the cusp of and oil and gas bonanza. Four separate but overlapping areas with potential for exploitation of hydrocarbon energy sources have been identified around the Islands. Final licences to drill and take advantage of these are yet to be issued, but it could all happen before the end of this year. Clearly the economic importance of controlling this potential source of income appeals greatly to Milei given his economic troubles at home.
It should be noted, though, that the Argentinian government is not threatening a repeat of the 1982 invasion, not yet anyway. Apart from anything else, Argentina’s armed forces are but a shadow of what they were when Galtieri sent his invasion force back in 1982. They just don’t have the wherewithal to do that again.
Although Britain’s military footprint on the Falklands is not large, comprising four Typhoon jets plus a Voyager tanker, one RN offshore patrol boat, and a couple of hundred soldiers on rotation, it’s enough to deter any sabre-rattling from Buenos Aires.
No, despite all his rhetoric about Argentina’s “legitimate claims for sovereignty over the Malvinas” and rectifying what he described as “colonial solutions such as this one”, his preferred option for future debate was bilateral talks with the UK.
He also alluded to the Islanders themselves being consulted on their future, which paradoxically is also the British government’s long-held position. So for all Milei’s bluff and bluster at the UN he is actually calling for the same approach as that espoused by the UK.
The final word should go to Baroness Chapman, Britain’s Minister for International Development, Latin America, and the Caribbean, who simply stated: “The UK’s support for the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination is unwavering”.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
i would have said the “bullied” action was NOT to recognise the Palestinian state. Funny how people see it differently.
I would say Starmer was pragmatically responding to pressure from labour MPs who represent constituencies with a large Muslim electorate.
Islam is now a political force whose consequences we have yet to come to terms with. They play hard ball.
Recognise my Terrorist state or we’ll blow up in your own country… Basically.
Two examples of the problem.
1. Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth MP lost his Leicester South seat at the general election to an independent candidate standing on a pro-Gaza, pro-Palestine ticket. No criticism of Wes Streeting but there is no doubt in my mind that the labour cabinet which governs the country was made weaker by his absence.
2. The Graudian reports that Keir Starmer is authorising a review of the laws around policing of protests, on account of chants like ‘ globalise the intifada’. We need to call a spade a spade: these persistent pro Palestine marches nurturing sedition.
Sedition: insurrection or rebellion; the raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
I agree with you 100% Paul. However, laws framed for one group will and have been used against others. Starmer may claim he wants to sort out the current seditious acts by the supporters of the religion of peace. They will be used with gusto by the police against those who want their streets to be safe for women and children to walk, and not have over £10 billion wasted on hordes of illegal fighting-age men.
Laws such as the revision and amendment of the Public Order Act 2023 was to stop anti-monarchy protestors from interfering in the Coronation proceedings (despite legislation being on the books to deal with that dating back as far as 1803), the same laws are being used against people carrying the Union Flag and Christian preachers in our town and city centres (strange its not used against others by the police). Meanwhile, thirty case officers in my office have been cut and replaced with eight apprentices. This is despite an additional 4,500+ being added to the list.
Labour appears to be adding more and more surveillance legislation by the month.
Your post raises so many points Ex it’s a challenge to remain within the spirit of a ‘defence’ blog. Firstly, I agree that ‘the govt’ is overseeing an increasing trend in surveillance; and I would add in, agreement with JD Vance, suppression of opinions which don’t conform to political correctness. e.g. paying outside abortion clinics, ‘cancelling’ of gender ‘critical’ views and writers like J.K. Rowling. Are they overreacting? If you push me for an opinion I would say the secretaries of state for education and culture and the new Home Secretary are reacting pretty well to what I consider to be an entrenched anti-christian infection of British society. Since labour politicians don’t ‘do God’ this phenomenon is described as not being congruent with British values. I can’t really comment on the changes underway in policing except to say the emphasis on community policing sounds good in principle. But as you suggest not to the extent that you undermine public order. If we stop believing the police apply the law fairly we are in big trouble.
UK gov recognised the Palestinian Authority’s government, not Hamas’ government.
Indeed.
Whilst I agree with the article I had thought that the Falklands was on the cusp of an oil bonanza more than ten years ago and it still hasn’t happened for one reason or another. In any case, protecting future oil shipments from the Falklands would probably be wise; I wouldn’t put it past Argentina (or a number of others) to try and interfere with such a trade.
Why would we want to protect future oil shipments from the Falklands when we are not drilling our own oil at home? If commercial oil extraction was that variable it would have happened already.
At current oil prices the North Sea isn’t profitable, all the low hanging fruits have been plucked.
It’s catch-22 of the energy market. We don’t want to be dependent, that’s fine, but right now they’re undercutting our prices and when you’re powering a country, a cent less adds up quick.
Kinda why I’m not fussed if Militwat said no drilling in the North Sea now, when prices are low, but if they were to spike and for a duration, I’d say we would just be leaving money in the ground not selling now. Because in the grand scheme, the UK and Norwegian fields won’t upset the market balance, they’re able to produce for this amount a barrel and any spike makes it more profitable means the treasury just needs to sit back and watch the income because of that market spike.
That’s when Militwat saying no more drilling would be detrimental to the UK.
New oil drills within the British Isle territory aren’t permitted due to new regulations, however the Falklands isn’t in the British isles.
Incorrect; New oil drills within the British Isle territory aren’t permitted due to new regulations, however the Falklands isn’t in the British isles.
That said oil turned out to be either not ready for extraction or too expansive to do so.
I think we would all be better off if Argentina had another go at the islands.
We are dearly in need of another laugh.
It must be embarrassing being Argentine, the only country to ever go from first world to third world and to have your politicans have such a low opinion of you that they think they can manipulate you into forgetting the embarrassing mess that is your country by harping on about a small crappy island
chain in the middle of nowhere.
Honestly if our country had tried to invade the Faroe’s, which we have as much claim to as Argentina has to the Falklands (because we are closer than Denmark) and we were beaten so badly I would have expected our politicians to try and hide it, not bring it up every 5 minutes.
It really is beyond me why anyone in Argentina would ever think they either had a claim to the Falklands or that the islands were even worth having.
Because they are constantly taught that the islands are theirs. They also have trash right wing newspapers just like the UK
We did invade the Faero islands and Iceland in 1940. We gave them back to Denmark in 1945 when the risk of German occupation was no longer there.
In 1989 when I visited them on holiday there was still a British 6 inch gun in Torshaven and I spoke to a man who had witnessed the British troops coming ashore in Reykavik
Eh Reykjavik is in Iceland.
Cool story, don’t see the relevance.
The Islands have Never belonged to Argentina, The United provinces of Rio de la Plata, nor Spain prior. There is no ‘retaking’ or ‘giving back’ to an entity that never had them.
This is much nearer historical reality. We have held the islands long before Argentina came into existence.
Mauritius walks into the room.
McB. Good point. Argentina took over the Spanish claim who had previously taken over the French claim. It’s all quite ridiculous.
Hi Jim,
Absolutely agree with both of your posts. Under the current government with it’s anti fossil fuel netzero crusade, there’s no way oil will be extracted from the Falklands.
At the moment i gather there’s a strong UK military presence on the Falklands. It would be very foolish for Argentina to try and retake the Islands back. My concern is Starmer hand the Falklands over to Argentina.
Cheers
George
What nonsense, there is zero chance of Stramer handing over the Falklands. Someone has been reading too much brainwashing right wing BS.
Jim, maybe gift them the islands. A costly white elephant.
To the Author Lt Col Stuart Crawford
Are you aware that David Lammy is not the Foreign Secretary?
He is the Deputy PM
Please note the Foreign Secretary is Yvette Cooper, she has been in the job for over a month now.
Wasn’t it also the Tories that started the Chagos deal anyway?
Understand that Labour could have just stopped it (maybe?) once they came into power though.
Yep it was and the speed at which labour finalised it once in power shows it was in its final stages. Just conservatives playing politics. They keep doing the same with the economy or immigration, they messed it up and now acting like they have been in opposition for a decade.
Well it makes sense when you consider that he is very much aligned with Trumps philosophy, if it’s near me, relatively un defended and packed full of lovely resources then I want it.
Next stop will be a tour of South American and African countries to stir up trouble at the UN, then a vote to de colonise the Falklands and Starmer caves in
Or just quietly point out that a TLAM popping through your Presidential Palace Window can really spoil your day.
Tds sufferer…..get it checked out you weirdo
Only Fascists use TDS as an argument.
Usually when they have no other point.
Using fascist to describe someone you disagree with is about as low as it gets. Several steps below what you were complaining about.
I’m not worried about Argentina launching a military invasion but with Starmer and the Labour Party I’m far more worried we’ll give it away. And give Argentina a few billion as compensation for being so nasty to them.
Zero chance of Starmer or any other PM gives them away. The islands rightfully below to the Falklanders & they will remain part of Britain aslong as they wish.
Agree. I can quite easily see a future UK government softly signing the islands over to Argentina due to being spineless.
I think Starmer is generally perceived to have done quite well internationally. His anti-crowd exist mainly because of his domestic efforts to cut back on freebies.
It still amazes me how appalled everyone was, when he tried to reduce winter fuel payments given to our richest demographic, under the guise of vulnerability. The same demographic who feel so staunchly about the idea of money being spent anywhere else, and the same demographic who are now likely to vote in Reform.
If he’s well regarded abroad it’s because he’s seen as a walkover!
Winter fuel payments is quite a digression from the Falklands but I think a big chunk of the anger was because Labour didn’t include it in their manifesto and given it was implemented so soon after the election it was obvious this was something planned but Labour chose to deceive the electorate. Same with Diago Darcia.
I digress! Forgive me, but the point I was trying to make is that the impossible heat Starmer is facing right now, is not because of his approach to international affairs. I think that’s felt locally.
Good god you reform voters are insufferable. It’s the tories that give everything away.
I’m no fan of the Tories but I don’t remember them paying anyone to take our sovereign territory over their last 14 years. That achievement goes to Labour.
Why do you people persist in lying to the ill informed British public? You obviously know that the deal to hand over the Chagos Islands was initiated by the Conservatives in 2022, but try to portray the illusion that it is the Labour Party (they’re NOT the Labour Party. They are the Tory Lite Party) that is responsible
The 2025 Chagos Islands deal was a result of negotiations initiated by the Conservative UK government of Rishi Sunak in 2022, and finalized and signed by the subsequent Labour government led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The deal was signed with the government of Mauritius.
STOP LYING.
The conservative govt,I believe actually stopped the discussion on the Chagos Islands and didn’t agree to hand them over!
Soooo it was down to this spineless lot to resurrect the deal and do the deed! Actually do some research before calling people liars👍
PS it was David Cameron as foreign secretary in Dec23 who stopped them because it was against British interests😉
And what British interests are those?
Hard one that isn’t it🤔let’s have a guess how about a strategic base in the middle of the Indian Ocean that can be used with no involvement of a foreign country that is virtually owned by China?
As you say déjà vu, but some important differences.
Last time round the US was neutral – although secretly provided support to UK on Ascension Island.
This time around Milai is allied with Trump – to the extent of a $20Bn credit line. And Trump has no qualms about annexing territory, or limiting the use of US supplied military equipment.
Last time around UK had a sizeable naval fleet with two aircraft carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. Although the Harriers were aging they were ideal for air support and air defence. And frankly expendable.
Now the UK only has one serviceable aircraft carrier. It is doubtful if the UK would risk sending it into a war zone – even if it could reach the South Atlantic without breaking down. F-35s would be overkill, but it’s unlikely that the UK would want to risk a $100m aircraft, let alone a $5.3bn aircraft carrier with 2 squadrons of F-35.
The 4 Typhoons seem to be the only way of defending the islands before an invasion. The UK didn’t have any air cover for the Falklands before 1982 and the Argentine Air Force hasn’t been updated since 1982. However the arrival of 24 reconditioned F16s in December 2025 will change the balance of airpower.
To answer your points, then with the long standing US relationship with the UK largely being nothing to do with current politics, the Argentines would risk political and economic isolation if they did even attempt to take the Islands by force again.
The size of the UK’s Naval fleet has nothing to do with how the UK would react. 16 Air Assault Brigade would have several thousand troops on the ground in a few days, never mind the weeks that a Naval Task Force would take to sail down south. The chances of them even being able to dig in if they miraculously did manage to land troops on the island would see them defeated in less than a week. Air support could easily be provided from ascension with Voyager. Operational range is much larger than what Victor’s used to be able to offer.
Those old F-16’s flown by pilots with limited time in the aircraft would be no match for Typhoon with highly trained pilots, AESA Radar and Meteor. They would be downed long before they got anywhere near the Falklands, and if one did manage to slip through the net, then the Sky Sabre air defence system in place would undoubtedly take it out.
If F-35 was deployed, the chances of Argentina having anything capable of shooting one down would be near zero.
As for Argentina actually being able to land anything on the islands, they lack any credible Naval assets, therefore being able to deploy any ground forces with support for occupation would be questionable at best, assuming they even managed to land ashore with the garrison at Mount Pleasant being occupied with troops highly trained and equipped by comparrison.
So in summary, the Argentines have little to no chance of any military campiagn being anything other than an embarrasing failure.
A very anti government article if there ever was one. Wonder if he supports Farage who is a Russian asset or the Tories who are very incompetent
Chagos Islands negotiations were started in the last government this one just rubber stamped it. The two are completely different there is no British population on chagos there’s a substantial one on Falklands which continuously vote to remain British.
As for the state of Palestine it is political theatre to put pressure on Israel to end the conflict. And remember the UK played a large part in the formation of Israel which led to the current situation. But he glossed over that
The Chagos agreement is a disgrace. The argument of ‘we just finished off what the Tories started’ is nonsense. Labour could have easily changed direction – they did on the Rwanada deal.
The UK did not create the current situation in the Middle East. The modern conflict goes back to the Arab invasion, occupation and colonisation of the Jewish homeland. That’s nearly a thousand years of history that’s built today’s conflict. The UK was but a tiny part in that enormous jigsaw.
Waste of time talking to any pro labour Muppet,as irrelevant as labour will be shortly
Labour are so bad they count as an enemy
As I’ve said above the Chagos deal was actually STOPPED by Cameron in Dec23, these Herbert’s resurrected the deal,
Farage being a Russian agent is a bit comical as Starmer and Co are fast being outed as Chinese assets🙄
Argentina has been on positive path since Melei took over. Ironically because the peronist did well in one local election the markets got spooked thinking the economically illiterate may get back in power.
Melei has said many times he thinks the Falklands should belong to Argentina but believes the islanders should decide their future.
Thank goodness for the Argies, if not for this particular bogeyman (sorry, bogeyperson) Labour would disarm entirely.
Well they might keep some regime control units around. London Revolutionary Guard Corps sort of thing.
Para 8, Sen 2 above: “And the second treason is that the UK in the form of PM Keir Starmer and…” People mainly read what they think a line should say so I wonder it Col Crawford is unintentionally showing what some idiots would call his ‘unconcious bias’ here by essentially accusing Starmer of treason, when he probably meant to leave off the ‘t’. The truth will out, I suppose.
To all who are unaware of the Falklands history:
-uninhabited and first sighted by John Davis: A Brit
-first landed by John Strong: A Brit
-A British settlement was setup the same year a french one was on the opposite Isle.
-Spain was upset about a British garrison so close to South America, but couldn’t take on Britain in a war, so they negotiated the British garrison leaves but Britain maintains their claim.
-The Spanish went back and deliberately destroyed the plaque and declaration of claim physically left on the Island to try and obscure future claims by the British.
-The island was then mainly used by British and American sealers until a botched colony, lead by a German on permission from the British embassy in Buenos Aires, usually non-argentines, mutinied and attacked an American sealing shop.
-Argentina tried to use this mess as a reason to take ownership, which Britain caught wind of and came down and kicked them out, then establishing a permanent colony for near 200 years now.
Tl;Dr – Argentina never controlled the isles, neither did Spain.
What about the French? They probably have been around at some point: « malvinas » refers to « saint Malo ».
So Argentina are on the ‘talk about the Falkands’ phase of their annual political cycle. At least this time, they’re publicly saying they’ll listen to the voice of the Falkland Islanders- they don’t always say that bit.
Quite the attack on Labour, particularly in the comments. Which is surprising, really. Given that the Conservatives tried to sink them on Defence during the last government with impossible to meet spending commitments, and Labour have been striving very hard to rebalance the books by reducing welfare and meeting those Defence budget increases that the Tories committed to, while also pushing military industrial strategy very heavily.
I’m pretty sure that most commentors on here normally lament that welfare is prioritised over defence- Labour appear to be at least changing the percentages on that. This being a defence site, I’m wondering what the upset is?
Perhaps the Falklands islanders should be asked if they would like to become part of the UK, rather than a British Overseas Territory. That would put the cat amongst the latino pigeons.
Interesting idea. I think the French possessions in the Pacific are actually French departments, part of France.
Exactly – the very heart of the thing, let democracy prevail, the will of the Falkland’s people.
What a partisan article. Hope this person doesn’t get much time here.
The cost of the Falklands war was £1.2 billion, in today’s money about £9.5 all – in costs. Taxpayers give Falklands £60 million every year. Oh my word. Very expensive sheep. Or in India – – a costly white elephant that will make you broke. Such is the price for pomp, pageantry, Empire.
K Mc. Such is the price of defending British people who live in the South Atlantic. Pomp, pageantry and Empire are words that do not fit the scenario.
It is good to see the US is rearming Argentina with F16…just like they did in the past with skyhawks. Once again they weaponise a potentially unstable regime.
Love how the great beacon of success for MAGA zealots has gone so belly up so quickly. Costing the US public $22 billion to help keep them afloat too even as they sell soya beans to China replacing US exports. Does one laugh or cry. A warning to us all I think just presuming such extremist populist right wing Govts will simply turn economies around, especially when you don’t have the economic might of the US to enforce others to comply to their dictats.
Rob N,….. And arming Milei with 20 billion in a currency swap. After Argentina election, their peso will be devalued again. In 2010 a USD was worth 78 peso now nearly 1500 pesos. Next? More than 2000? And buying Argentine beef for Americans is nice, American ranchers are a bit upset. Hopefully the ranchers will get a bailout like the farmers. Some Federal workers are put back to work specifically to get bailout money to the farmers who vote for GOP. The US National debt just exceeded 38 trillion, 40 T could be achieved sooner than expected. Gold might to go 5000.