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.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Jim interesting comments. what is a consideration about Chagos islands, its proposed UK pays rent for one island but if we don’t have agreement with them and their good will they can lease another island to China and the West looses the advantage.
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.
We didn’t have tomohawk cruise missiles in 1982. Now we do.
But, how many? The last purchase was in 2004 for 64 missiles, which are being upgraded to the Block V configuration Being sub-launched, how many Astutes can be deployed at given time?
We have about 80 Tomahawk in inventory. Would be gone in no time. We can only get 1 (!) SSN to sea if we’re lucky anyway.
Storm Shadow have essentially all gone to Ukraine, even though the line is restarting.
F35 can only carry Paveway.
Our offensive capability doesn’t really exist anymore.
We can defend the F.I. I’m sure Graham. A squadron of Typhoons and an Asture will take care of it, although I don’t think Argentina is stupid enough tp try it today. Your second point is the most worrying and very valid as ever. We have got to the state where the Royals are not in the running anymore for a second Falklands or anything like it; a carrier we can do but escorts? Undersea UAV’s and sailing boats are all very well but they are not a blue water navy. Will the politicians wake up? I very much doubt it.
We dont or wont have an Astute in the FI though will we?
We have 4 Typhoon there, what sort of weapon stores do they have there for a real war?
I’m working on the assumption, which is dangerous I know, that Typhoons can get there in a day and that the threat of an Astute arriving would tip the balance. What we really need of course is a battery of something like NSM.
But the thing us everyone in the world knows we have one Astute available. It’ll take forever to get there and will that have much ordnance will it have?
We’ve got hardly anything left and hardly any ammunition for what we do have.
Our armed forces are all hat and no cattle these days.
No argument from me. I’ve been banging on about it for years. Blair and Brown, Cameron and co. and now Labour again led by Mr. I don’t know. It’s worse now than ever.
I think the combination of TLAM SSN would hold at risk any target. No Black Buck missions needed now.
To be honest my concern with that is our limited supply of tomahawks and the fact the US could and possibly would refuse to provide them..
I honestly think the uk needs a second source of sub launched cruise missiles as a just in case option..
You really need air- and ship-launched cruise missile like NSM/JSM.
Not really because our only Astute went off to Australia and now is near the middle East.
How many Tomahawk would it be carrying anyway?
We can’t triple hat gear all the time.
We have next to no capability at all.
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!
Hence my (!). 😊
I remember well the build up to It all as I had a certain Interest in Argentine football at school a few years before. It was an Interesting subject that taught me about their history and the claim to the FI’s which I had never heard of before.
Thatcher was given a rare chance to unite the country and she took it.
Our people were magnificent In doing so.
I was young chap living in America during the conflict, hardly any coverage of the Falklands war and no particular feeling of pro British attitude to someone living there at the time.
simon, incredible. The Falklands conflict was the biggest air-sea-land conflict since WW2, some said.
Correct mate.
FCO downplayed it.
GCHQ had picked up stuff, the DA in B A had reported trouble, so had HMS Endurance with sigint on the roof.
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.
we should maintain good intel in argentina and maintain enough deterrence on the falklands. the bear is the top problem presently. think the defence minister may have stated we been dealing with attacks i suppose cyber and salisbury poisonings.
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”
Beautiful comment and reflects my sentiments exactly. Accompanied by you have a month to vacate every UK base you infest including Menwith Hill and others, then play blindman because your intel has gone. You do not “do” diplomacy with idiots like this and the moron Hegseth, you kick them in the balls.
I say, Sir, we’re British, so we don’t need language like that!🤣
A better approach would be to revoke this particular colony’s independence until their leader learns to behave like a gentleman😂
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.
On the last paragraph, the French did this with Reunion, and we absolutely should do it with at least the Falklands, Gib, and Bermuda.
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.
This lunacy will need to stop, or else the Trump gang will do untold damage to international diplomacy and trade, and the USA could see the worst recession in history as it runs up to the next new president. He or she will face a phalanx of resentment across the globe, and in many cases it might last years. The era of massive dependence on America by so many nations could see a shift away and new compacts avoiding US reliance. Someone needs to make a stand in Washington; I fear it is now beyond just condemnation matched with serious facial expressions but a delegation of all parties to say, ‘Enough is enough.’
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?
Levi, 16 AA Bde is not permanently stationed on the Falklands.
Yes indeed, but it was my understanding they would be there in a matter of hours in the case of any nasty business, or as a deterent if nasty business were forecast?
No, not hours. The Brigade as a whole is on a lower level of readyness, and unless Voyager and permissive landing at MP is in play your not moving the brigade there in hours either way.
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.
You’ll get Starmer waving a legal paper from the international court as the do not enter sign
Falkland Islands TV recently aired a 4 PARA training exercise showing them using FPV drones which would devastate any invasion force if it comes to it.
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.
A battery of this for the Falklands would be ideal..
www (.) hunterdefence.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/StrikeMaster-Special-Supplement-final-double-page-spreads.pdf
Remove the ( )
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!
I’ve often thought it funny that, if you sweep across a continent, displacing and killing an indigenous population to steal their land, then that is state building but, if you get on a boat to do it, then that’s called colonialism.
True and not something the Americans are keen to recognise. It’s simply not possible square their origin myth and associated self-image as a country (plunky freedom-loving colonists) which their subsequent actions (black slavery, genocide of Native Americans, provoking wars of annexation against Mexico; the invasion and forcible annexation of Hawaii)? They just pretend it didn’t happen.
It is not often recognised that the last extant Empire on the European sub-continent is Russia but for the very reason you highlighted most assume that Russia is an homogenous entity – one ‘country’ – when in fact it is a huge multi-ethnic empire, all held together by bribes and threats of violence from the Imperial hub in Moscow.
It even had the cheek to appropriate the legacy of the Kyivan Rus and call itself Russia, when in fact it would be more accurate to label it for what it really is: the ‘Moscow Empire’.
Since ‘Russia’ appears addicted to this imperial approach of conquest and subjugation and it apparently can’t imagine a future where it acts as a normal, peaceful country; just one among many, the only hope the rest of us has is if it can be taken back to its roots as the small state of Moscovy so it can’t threaten us here in Europe anymore.
And the British colonists didn’t displace the Native Americans on the North American continent? The US fought a war with Mexico and gained territory just like the British fighting the French and gaining Canada. You hypocrite Brits.
Go on give it back you know you really want to👍
So to get it straight it’s ok for you to take land by treaty and war and get the hump when we say give it back,sooo how is it we have to give something away to a country that never had it in the first place and that be alright! And you get the hump when we say Foxtrot Oscar😉b
How’s the plans for Cuba coming along by the way?
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.
Yes, I agree it would take longer to assemble than 1982 however the force that left after a few days in 82 was not ready to fight, it was more of a bluff and it left very early missing many items.
However we have two T45 and a carrier and at-least one T23 already to go now although we would have to strip NATO commitments. A decent sized force could be dispatched with in a week or two all sailing as one with the carrier and amphibious platforms together instead of being staggered as in 1982.
Its not top trumps though Jim. You name capabilities like they are available. So our one SSN is on the side of the world, what then? Then it takes an age to get there, fires its half dozen TLAM, what then? Goes back to Scotland to re-arm? What then? We have way less than 100 TLAM total.
If we’re honest we all know our forces are a Potemkin village.
I mean we dont really have a Navy anymore. Thank god the Argies aren’t that tasty anymore either.
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!
It’s worth mentioning that Argentina is not threatening the Falklands, it merely asserts its long running claim to the islands but its president has repeatedly stated that Argentina will not use force nor does it expect the matter to be resolved any time soon.
It’s a life long saga with no end Jim.
You believe them?
Mate you are being far too polite about the Fabian Communist Lawyers Cabal. They are traitors full stop. And thus should be treated as such, and stuff “due process”.
👍
👍
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…
So two brigades managed to recapture the Falklands in 1982 with almost no AirPower, limited artillery, no land attack helicopters and with virtually the entire force needing to walk to battle, but today you think that we can’t retake it with three brigades, backed by F35, GMLRS and a massive transport fleet of Merlin and chinooks.
How does that work?
Munro 🤦♂️
Anyone who believes that today’s Westminster/Whitehall would commit the entire deployable elements of the British Army to the South Atlantic, even if they could get them there, which they could not, even if they could sustain them there, which they could not, must be a good buddy of Lewis Carroll…
Pretty sure they would send the royal marines instead. In fact I’m pretty sure that’s what they are for 😀
16AAB and the Commando force is all that’s required would be required.
You mean the Royal Marines that have already been promised to NATO (as part of our SDR 2025 NATO First strategy) for a variety of different roles?:
‘The UK Royal Marines act as the spearhead of NATO’s defence in the High North, specializing in Arctic and mountain warfare to counter regional threats. From 2026, 45 Commando Group is operating year-round in Northern Norway, training for, and prepared to deliver, high-readiness combat operations, covert reconnaissance, and maritime surveillance along Norway’s coastline’
‘Amphibious Advance Force operations…should increasingly focus on supporting NATO requirements, including integrating into the UK-led Strategic Reserve Corps when appropriate’
That is precisely what I mean by willing the mission but not the means. Every British Armed Forces land formation is over-committed, promised many times over in an attempt to pretend that we can live up to our commitment (by treaty) to provide NATO with a two division army corps which, at the moment, we clearly cannot.
With war on Continental Europe in full flow, threats to overseas territories in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and elsewhere, no British Government is going to commit what is effectively the entire British deployable land force to the South Atlantic. Not going to happen…
Should the SDR 2025 be delivered in full, Britain might regain the kind of expeditionary capability that it had throughout the 20th century.
At the moment, as General Sir Patrick Sanders pointed out, it no longer has a sustainable expeditionary capability of more than one brigade.
Yes the same ones, NATO commitments are always secondary to members Soverign commitments, exact same thing happened in 1982.
Geopolical genius!
1982 wars:
Iran v Iraq
USSR v Afghanistan
2026 wars:
Russia v Ukraine, UK, Baltic States, Moldova etc.
Iran v U.S.A., U.K. etc
So let’s send the fleet, the Royal Marines and Uncle Tom Cobley to the South Atlantic with the most tenuous logistical supply route available to us using maritime resources that we no longer have…
Or not really…
You seem oblivious to the fact that the government are well aware that would be political suicide. They have this desire to, you know, cling onto their jobs…
I very much doubt that best military advice to the government over the next few years would be to send the one expeditionary brigade that we are able to deploy and sustain to the South Atlantic, at the end of a long and extremely fragile logistics train, particularly since the recapture of the islands would require at least two brigades, a force we are incapable of sustaining in the field for the length of time that would be required. Contingency planning for a Russian victory in Ukraine, followed by an attack on the Baltic States and a subsequent triggering of Article 5 would strongly argue against any such adventurism. The government might think that it would make such a deployment to recapture The Falklands but it would not, indeed could not.
Losing the Falklands militarily today forget!
Argentina are nowhere near having either the political will or the military capability to capture the Falklands today.
However Chile supports Argentina’s claim. Prudent contingency planning mandates therefore that Britain should consider how to react in the albeit unlikely event of another invasion of the Falklands.
As I say, at the moment, there is very little that Britain could do in such an event other than interdict from sea and air.
Current U.S. operations against Iran clearly demonstrate the limitations of that approach.
With aircraft now able to reach the Falklands C17/Voyager at the first sign of trouble extra Typhoons/F35 and elements of 16 AA will be down there in a flash! There is a capable defence on the islands anyway unlike 82 when there was only a troop of RM and Endurance.
With today’s assets I’m pretty sure we would notice a build up and actually react if needed!
Yes…just like we did before the telegraphed invasion of The Falklands in 1982, the telegraphed invasion of Kuwait 1990, the telegraphed invasion of Ukraine 2014 and again in 2022, the attack on Bahrain 2026, the attack on SBA Akrotiri 2026.
What is that smoky fragrance on the air…?
Coffee. The whole country must wake up..or not and face ultimate oblivion…
Democracy: the least worst form of government…
European “imperial possessions”? Ah, but it’s OK when America has possession of other territory, wants to take territory I.e Greenland, or is more than happy to use imperialistic European nations and their oversea territories.
trump is trying to buy greenland from it’s inhabitants, doesn’t sound imperialist to me ?
Trump seems to be just lashing out at everybody, Even Giorgia Meloni in Italy is now out of favour. his feud with the Pope, seems to be dragging in Roman C in the US as well.
we don’t have the navy, if the argies get on the isalnd it’s gone
My point so prepare and send the fleet to the FI as a show force. We need to show potential adversaries that we mean business. Also good for the UK tax payers to see what the tax is being spent on.
Just as a matter of interest how do you expect the Argies to actually get on the FI? Airbourne assault,seaborne invasion,secret submarine landings or something else?
You obviously anticipate the Argentine armed forces will struggle to attack the FI. If they managed back in 82 I am sure they will be able to mount an attack today. They are relatively close to the FI and we are many thousands of miles away. An Argentine special forces lead invasion could take the airfield at Stanley and then we would be on the back foot. My point is a show of force will put things to bed and ensure we are not caught off guard as we were in 82.
The Argentinian forces are not the same as back in 82! It has been discussed on here at length whenever this issue crops up!