A co-author of last year’s defence review has warned that US comments about the Falkland Islands should be taken seriously and engaged with directly, describing Trump’s stance as a combination of genuine belief and political posturing rooted in his alliance with Argentina’s President Milei.
Dr Fiona Hill, who served on the review alongside Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, told the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the Falklands comments were “a bit of both” when asked whether they represented substance or posturing.
“It is classic Trump. Greenland was obviously a major shock to the system, and he meant every bit of that,” she said, adding that Trump still wanted to see Greenland as part of the United States but was pivoting toward Argentina because of his close political alliance with President Milei.
“He is basically saying that, as far as he is concerned, the whole set of geopolitical arrangements is up for grabs,” she told MPs.
Hill was clear the UK should not let the comments pass without response. “One should engage directly on this. Certainly, behind closed doors would be better initially, but we should certainly take that seriously and do not let it just pass by,” she said.
The wider discussion touched on whether US support for Europe had effectively infantilised European allies by allowing them to avoid hard defence choices for decades. Hill said that from the US perspective the answer was absolutely yes, adding that across both Republican and Democratic administrations the US had talked “rather derisively in private, but sometimes also in public, about Europe and allies in Europe”, at times referring to Europeans as an unwashed mass.
Lord Robertson agreed, saying a Lords committee report published last week had made the same point, that European countries by “relying on the United States of America for key capabilities, have in many ways infantilised themselves” and were now having to wake up to the prospect that American support taken for granted may not be available for every crisis.
Pulls up comfy chair, sticks the kettle on…..
😊
HMG does take the threat seriously. That’s why there is a flight of Typhoons and an air defence systems permanently stationed on the island as well as a significant army and naval presence.
A lot smaller army and RN presence than there used to be.
Sky Sabre is a very, very good system.
Something like land based NSM would be more than useful to make up for the limited ASh capabilities of Typhoon T1.
Er, a roulement AR company and a B2 is your idea of taking the threat seriously? We live in a different universe.
An investment in the islands, with provision for serious renewable power generation, land set aside for an AI data centre, a determination to increase the population, and provision of a large detention centre for asylum applications (serious point, why can’t we use the FIs?) which would have attraction of more jobs and act as a deterrent for applicants could fund a much larger military force, and that is before oil is found in sufficient quantities.
Rant over 😀
Why on earth would you want to put a detention centre all the way down there? Quite apart from getting them there and back costing a fortune it would actually increase the risk to the islands with various do gooders and unfriendly Govts making much capital out of it!
There are Scottish islands much closer to home that could be used if the will was there for camps but dream on there are no hotels etc on the ones I have in mind👍
Better yet put them on the isle of Sheppey, it’s nice and close to the beaches where everyone is coming in and no one lives there.
“significant naval presence”? One River class visiting when in the area.
How well defended are the Falklands against a sustained drone attack ? Presumably, Sky Sabre is there to defend against manned aircraft.