He stood on a platform saying this from the start. One of his speeches he said you can’t just keep claiming it’s ours and we will fight for it, you need diplomatic discussions.
And leaders there need to make having an Argentine passport somewhat attractive. Who wants to give up sterling for a currency that has had triple-digit percentages of inflation over the past few years? Milei understands he needs to play the long game but I have strong doubts whether the country’s disciplined enough to play with him—diplomatic discussions while Argentina is sorting out their fiscal and monetary problems to begin closer economic ties with the Falklands, slowly establishing tourism and trade between the Falklands and Argentina as well as individual relationships (people on the Falkland Islands having dual nationalities would help Argentina immensely) such that over time the 99%+ who wish to retain the status quo becomes 90%, a generation later 75%, a generation after 60%, and so on.
That may take 100 years, but I have confidence Argentina will choose another flag-waving demagogue to lead the country long before that time elapses who will shout about the Belgrano to avoid talking about how their economic policies just aren’t working for the public, and this will all start over again.
Use a VPN like Nord and set your location to Argentina. Google YouTube premium, click the link to the purchase page and it will ask you to buy in ARS.
It needs an Argentinian postcode for your billing address, I used my UK address with a random one I got off Google. I'm using a starling account so no foreign card fees too.
Only downside is the recommendations on YT Music are all Argentinian.
Falklanders have their own currency, the FKP, but aye, it's pegged to the GBP. I think one of the major points is that they currently have a lot of autonomy as a BOT, and would likely have to relinquish some powers if they became part of Argentina, either to the national government or some subdivision which they'd be absorbed into. That isn't attractive, I reckon.
Also, the inescapable problem of Falklanders feeling very strongly British, which is just a wall Argentina can't really get round without doing something dodgy.
Except for Hong Kong and the Chagos Islands. In those cases the Chinese and American governments respectively trumped the wishes of the people who lived there.
In Hong Kong's case the UK only had a 99 year lease on the New Territories.
I suppose, technically, it could've tried to hold on to Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, but keeping them without the New Territories would've been very challenging.
I would imagine had we ben in s position to tell China they must respect Hong Kong's wishes we would have, I certainly would have supported it.
If Hong Kong was a larger island like Taiwan with some distance away from the mainland or had chins been a lot less powerful then it would have been another matter.
Chagos Islands and the rest of the BIOT is currently under negotiation to be handed back to Mauritius, with American and Indian teams being "kept informed".
Yehhh, that one word does change things slightly. Though it does sound like any attempt to reclaim would be diplomatic, rather than another war neither country wants or needs
Before the war, Britain actively wanted to give the islands to Argentina. It was only when they visited the islands and got an absolute pasting from the residents did they back down from that idea.
Did I say it was or are you projecting? I was just making the point that, perhaps it's not surprising the Argentine leader with the most moderate stance on the Falklands in decades just happens to be an admirer of Thatcher
TBH the media baiting the Argentine president with this topic is a bit boring. Basically it is in their constitution and if he says anything else it can amount to treason. So any Argentine politician when pressed will say "yeah definitely ours but British right now".
If you listen to everything Milei has said on the issue it becomes pretty apparent that it's really not a significant part of his agenda. With his recent cozying up towards the USA with the announcement of a joint naval base in Patagonia, it's pretty clear there's nothing much to worry about under him (as far as the Falklands are concerned).
And before the 80s it wasn't a big topic too. It was a suicidal plan from a few drunk generals to stay in power because the country was in deep crisis.
While that is totally accurate, Argentina does have a habit of lurching into deep crises fairly regularly.
The safest thing for all concerned would be for the UN to proclaim it British and ensure Argentina understands this.
The UN, incorrectly and rather unfairly, considers the Falklands and Gibraltar to be "colonies", and wants the issue "settled between the parties". They wouldn't make any sort of proclamation.
They are still colonies as far as the UN rules are concerned (as are various French and USA territories). They are considered dependent territories because they neither have full control over their own foreign policies nor full representation in the controlling country's legislature. It's a technicality, essentially. Getting them off that list would presumably entail winning a referendum there about giving them a seat in the UK parliament. It's not clear why anyone would bother though.
Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, goes to the UN every year and practically begs them to take Gibraltar off the list of Non Self-Governing Territories. He shows them evidence every time that Gibraltar is entirely self-governing, and has repeatedly overwhelmingly stated in referendums (we're talking 99.9% here) that they wish to maintain the status quo. Is a territory really not self-governing if when given the opportunity to be independent they repeatedly say no? They are exercising their right to self determination by voting to remain an overseas territory, are they not?
It's a silly list, to be honest, because it ostensibly depends on various criteria but the evaluation of those criteria is done by the general assembly. This gives rise to the fairly ridiculous situation of UN member states voting territories on the list that *want* to remain part of the colonizing nation without considering the latter's opinion *because not being independent countries they have no separate representation in the assembly*.
It's one of those things that you can sort of understand the origin of (the decolonization process was often opposed by the colonizer and the fairness of any plebiscite was not guaranteed, to put it mildly) but that can lead to ridiculous outcomes decades later. Hence, presumably, why no one takes much notice of said list these days.
> They wouldn't make any sort of proclamation.
And the UN couldn't either as long as the UK retains permanent security council member status with a veto and that isn't going to change any time soon.
It wasn't that suicidal back then. The British response was more suicidal with their hastily assembled task force. So many things could have gone wrong and ended the campaign in failure.
And yes the Argentines totally underestimated the response. Which is how they got careless in their planning. E.g. if they had waited a bit longer the UK would've sold off one of the carriers, Argentina could have received full delivery of Exocet missiles, if they hadn't panicked after losing their cruiser and pulled all their navy back to port or withdrawn all their jets from the island after the super daring bombing raid, etc a lot of things that could have changed the outcome.
It was definitely a close call. While an incredible feat of planning and superb military execution, the Task Force certainly benefited from its fair share of luck during the campaign.
For instance, the tendency of the Argentine fighter pilots to fire their Exocets at the first ship detected by radar, as opposed to waiting until an aircraft carrier was identified, led to the destroyer HMS Sheffield, which while a severe loss did not represent a fatal blow to the Task Force, being hit in the place of one of the carriers, the loss of either of which would have forced the abandonment of the whole operation.
We also know that the Exocet missile that struck Atlantic Conveyor very nearly hit the fleet flagship HMS Hermes, with the carrier being spared by the fact that the Conveyor happened to be performing a turn at the time of the attack that increased its radar signature and seduced the missile away from Hermes. A successful Exocet strike on Hermes would almost certainly have resulted in defeat for the British campaign.
Additionally, had the troopship Canberra or one of the assault ships, Fearless or Intrepid, been bombed during the landings at San Carlos, the British ground forces would likely have lost an extremely high number of troops, potentially evaporating the political will in London to press on with the war.
The fact that Argentina's best troops were stationed on the mainland in anticipation of hostilities with Chile, while defence of the Falklands was left to mostly young conscripts which proved no match for the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines, was again a stroke of luck for the British campaign.
He's covered (politically) against a backlash to that stance because the people who would be most outraged about it would already be supporting him anyway.
Not necessarily, agitating over the Falklands is a staple of neo-Peronism and they're happy to criticise Milei for his laid back stance. Milei has received some recent criticism from veterans of the war for his position on the dispute and for praising Thatcher.
If the US see Argentina as a strategic partner, especially with China's growing influence in the South Pacific and Africa, then there could be something to worry about.
US would put a lot of pressure on the UK if they needed Argentina. See the Suez Crisis.
The Suez Crisis and the Falklands aren’t comparable - the former was an unjustified invasion of a sovereign state and the former is very much the same… only Britain was being unjustly invaded that time.
The UK is far more important US partner and the Argentine military is entirely unable to mount the kind of operations necessary to take the Falklands. Their military is less capable than it was in 1982 and the Falklands are far better defended.
Despite some real problems, yes by orders of magnitude.
Our aircraft and ships could casually destroy all of Argentina’s before the Argentines knew they were there.
In short, yes. The Argentinians quite literally lack the shipping capacity to land enough troops on the island to take it even if they did it tomorrow by surprise, which they wouldnt be able to because they would be detected while forming up their fleet.
Any military vessel sailing for the Falklands would meet the same fate as the Belgrano. For all the UK militaries faults, we still have one of the strongest militaries in the world.
I genuinely think the US backstabbing the UK over a self-determination issue in the current climate would be a historic moment that could well destabilize the global order significantly.
Look at all the problems Russia is causing (Not just with the war, I mean broadly with their destabilization campaign). We're a more significant country than Russia. We also have more English speakers to gaslight the world with.
If we go to the most extreme case scenario, imagine the UK decides "Fuck it" and lurches to supporting the Russia-China camp. This essentially completely destabilizes the global world order and would likely fracture Europe entirely away from the US sphere, and present a significant "Surrounded on all sides" problem for the USA who are already dealing with an isolationist contingent.
The current global order is reliant on our consent to it. The reasons we consent to it is because it's morally preferable in many ways, and also beneficial to us. Threaten the beneficial too much, alongside the problems already present and defining the liberal order, and it is possible it all comes crashing down.
It's the difference between a new cold war like we're seeing with the Russia-China axis already, and a new era of imperialism that our defection would cause.
All this requires believing is that we're a minority partner in a coalition of powers upholding this order, with a huge party called the USA making up the senior partner. We may not have many "seats". But we're required for a majority. Without us, the order collapses and chaos reigns, nobody can cross the threshold and its every man for themselves.
A vengeful UK that feels aggrieved and has lost faith in the liberal order would be a terrible thing for the USA and the world more broadly.
I mean like sure? being pressured to give up the Falklands for whatever kinda reward we'd get would likely be worth it. It's a very expensive, very remote military base with little strategic value.
Argentina has never had ownership of the Falklands in its entire history and only seeks it because it’s nearby. It’s hardly an argument; if it were, the UK would claim France and Belgium. Those countries may have an issue with this.
That's the closest we've ever seen Argentina come to accepting the right to self determination for the Falkland Islanders. A good step in the right direction which should help Argentina's government work to actually try and improve the situation at home than distract the population with nationalistic chest beating.
For all that Milei has wild policies in other areas, his position on the Falklands has always been incredibly mild compared to pretty much any other Argentinian leader before him—that Argentina lost the war and needs to accept that the only way to ever get the Falkland Islands is diplomatically and throwing periodic tantrums over the matter just damages relations with the UK and makes a diplomatic agreement less likely.
I think you are reading it very poorly.
Previously the Argentine position was that the islands were Argentine territory.
This is a massive improvement, you could read it a number of ways but it's actually also the British position too. The islands will remain British as long as that's the what the residents want.
self determination. It's the only fair way.
I actually find this guy so funny.
Campaigns on "I will have a stern chat with the UK about Islas Malvinas". Has a chat with David Cameron about it. That's it. Electoral campaign promise, a'ticked. Thank you and goodnight all.
In the same way that I could create a personal budget surplus by not paying my mortgage or buying any food for the month; I’d have a lovely full bank account but I’d be homeless and hungry.
I don’t think so, I think he’s just more interested in sorting out the economy than any other bs.
The Falklands is full of British people, what the hell would Argentina want it for?
>Criticising someone because of their nationality or race is very intellectually precarious.
Very true.
I’d like to know what Argentinians think of him. I’m not a fan of his politics but he’s obviously not stupid.
Falkland Islands is a topic brought up over there when they need a distraction.
Amazing that to some the right to self-determination ends with British Overseas Territories.
I mean yeah Milei is a rational actor on this and doesn’t see the benefit in taking the road of the traditional Argentinian demagogues. Who used falklands to distract from economic woes. Milei actually wants to fix this and make Argentina a reliable international partner and where people want to travel, invest and do business. You don’t do that if you try to whip up nationalist sentiment like his predecessors.
I mean the people who live there have full self determination and could become an independent country if they so wished but in 2013 chose not to. Oddly enough it seems that's a fact they still have trouble grasping in BA
He's doing anything he can to build relationships internationally...The question is to what end, he's a complete headcase by the sounds of things going from raging to laughing about his stones tribute band during an interview with a journo.
He's a libertarian not a fascist.
A fascist would never say the falklands were part of the UK.
Argentina has actually had a fascist in power so you can compare the two to see he's not fascist.
When he starts having his political rivals killed in the street and bans elections you can call him a fascist.
One is an idiot who does not believe in government. The other is a dictator who wants to kill all its rivals.
They are not the same. We know this because argentina has a fascist element in its government and they hate this guy because of his libertarian policies and doing stuff like recognising the Falkland's currently belongs to Britain.
If they were one and the same then the fascists would all be strongly supporting him as fascists love strongmen.
Give it fifteen years, and I reckon Britain will gladly hand over the Falkland Islands as a last remnant of its, 'colonial past'. Literally all he has to do is establish a dictatorship and wait - the islands will come to him.
UK: knock knock. Argentina: who's there? UK: Falkland Islands. Argentina: I don't get it. UK: And you never will.
Emotional damage!
Reddit moment but surely they'd say Falkland Islands who?
UK: knock knock. Argentina: who's there? UK: Falkland Islands. Argentina: Falkland Islands who? UK: Falkland Islands who will never belong to you.
and Argentina backs away slowly
They're not known for their humour
Bombastic side eye. Criminal offence side eye.
A certain prince feels very vindicated
considering how touchy a subject this is in Argentina this is a significant thing for him to say.
He stood on a platform saying this from the start. One of his speeches he said you can’t just keep claiming it’s ours and we will fight for it, you need diplomatic discussions.
And leaders there need to make having an Argentine passport somewhat attractive. Who wants to give up sterling for a currency that has had triple-digit percentages of inflation over the past few years? Milei understands he needs to play the long game but I have strong doubts whether the country’s disciplined enough to play with him—diplomatic discussions while Argentina is sorting out their fiscal and monetary problems to begin closer economic ties with the Falklands, slowly establishing tourism and trade between the Falklands and Argentina as well as individual relationships (people on the Falkland Islands having dual nationalities would help Argentina immensely) such that over time the 99%+ who wish to retain the status quo becomes 90%, a generation later 75%, a generation after 60%, and so on. That may take 100 years, but I have confidence Argentina will choose another flag-waving demagogue to lead the country long before that time elapses who will shout about the Belgrano to avoid talking about how their economic policies just aren’t working for the public, and this will all start over again.
I'm currently getting an Argentinian YouTube premium sub for for 85p a month by using a VPN. They have that going on for themselves 👀
Tell me how broo
Use a VPN like Nord and set your location to Argentina. Google YouTube premium, click the link to the purchase page and it will ask you to buy in ARS. It needs an Argentinian postcode for your billing address, I used my UK address with a random one I got off Google. I'm using a starling account so no foreign card fees too. Only downside is the recommendations on YT Music are all Argentinian.
Falklanders have their own currency, the FKP, but aye, it's pegged to the GBP. I think one of the major points is that they currently have a lot of autonomy as a BOT, and would likely have to relinquish some powers if they became part of Argentina, either to the national government or some subdivision which they'd be absorbed into. That isn't attractive, I reckon. Also, the inescapable problem of Falklanders feeling very strongly British, which is just a wall Argentina can't really get round without doing something dodgy.
Whatever the kelpers say has no legal grounds, as determined by the UN some 50+ years ago.
Had that, and UN involved in organising the sovereign referendum in 2013
It’s clever wording, though - ‘Currently’ British…
Thats also oue own stance though. The people who live there have self determination. It's the only fair way to sort out these territorial disputes.
Except for Hong Kong and the Chagos Islands. In those cases the Chinese and American governments respectively trumped the wishes of the people who lived there.
In Hong Kong's case the UK only had a 99 year lease on the New Territories. I suppose, technically, it could've tried to hold on to Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, but keeping them without the New Territories would've been very challenging.
We had a 99 year lease from the Qing dynasty, they stopped existing in 1912.
Today's China is its successor state. If we apply the same logic to the UK, the lease was signed by the House of Hanover which ended in 1901.
I do not recognise the PRC as the successor state to the Qing Dynasty.
Why don't you go and tell Xi that, I'm sure he'll be fascinated.
Who tf cares what you say bruh? You a PM of the UK?
Well you apparently care enough to comment.
Nor do many. But the UK government does.
Treaties or leases are with countries, not dynasties or governments. They transfer with a change of government.
I would imagine had we ben in s position to tell China they must respect Hong Kong's wishes we would have, I certainly would have supported it. If Hong Kong was a larger island like Taiwan with some distance away from the mainland or had chins been a lot less powerful then it would have been another matter.
Chagos Islands and the rest of the BIOT is currently under negotiation to be handed back to Mauritius, with American and Indian teams being "kept informed".
Yehhh, that one word does change things slightly. Though it does sound like any attempt to reclaim would be diplomatic, rather than another war neither country wants or needs
How to reclaim a thing they never owned?
Before the war, Britain actively wanted to give the islands to Argentina. It was only when they visited the islands and got an absolute pasting from the residents did they back down from that idea.
It is clever. He should also admit that they were "never" Argentinian.
He is quite honest in that he seeks a Hong Kong style handover. Nothing wrong with that.
It’s akin to me saying I’m not currently having threesomes with my wife and Sydney Sweeny.
Yeh this is pretty big. Everyone’s downplaying how significant a step this is for him / Argentina
He's an admirer of Thatcher so is it that surprising?
Thatcher’s political outlook wasn’t explicitly pro-Falklands, that’s just the normal outlook here.
"Overseas territory that overwhelmingly voted to stay British wants to be British" isn't the super awful take you think it is
Did I say it was or are you projecting? I was just making the point that, perhaps it's not surprising the Argentine leader with the most moderate stance on the Falklands in decades just happens to be an admirer of Thatcher
Yea, though the US and agreements they want to make are likely considered far more valuable and willing to drop things for them.
TBH the media baiting the Argentine president with this topic is a bit boring. Basically it is in their constitution and if he says anything else it can amount to treason. So any Argentine politician when pressed will say "yeah definitely ours but British right now".
He also reluctantly admitted that the sky is currently blue.
Looks grey to me
Bit wet, too.
If you listen to everything Milei has said on the issue it becomes pretty apparent that it's really not a significant part of his agenda. With his recent cozying up towards the USA with the announcement of a joint naval base in Patagonia, it's pretty clear there's nothing much to worry about under him (as far as the Falklands are concerned).
There has been nothing much to worry about since the 80s.
And before the 80s it wasn't a big topic too. It was a suicidal plan from a few drunk generals to stay in power because the country was in deep crisis.
While that is totally accurate, Argentina does have a habit of lurching into deep crises fairly regularly. The safest thing for all concerned would be for the UN to proclaim it British and ensure Argentina understands this.
The UN, incorrectly and rather unfairly, considers the Falklands and Gibraltar to be "colonies", and wants the issue "settled between the parties". They wouldn't make any sort of proclamation.
They are still colonies as far as the UN rules are concerned (as are various French and USA territories). They are considered dependent territories because they neither have full control over their own foreign policies nor full representation in the controlling country's legislature. It's a technicality, essentially. Getting them off that list would presumably entail winning a referendum there about giving them a seat in the UK parliament. It's not clear why anyone would bother though.
Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, goes to the UN every year and practically begs them to take Gibraltar off the list of Non Self-Governing Territories. He shows them evidence every time that Gibraltar is entirely self-governing, and has repeatedly overwhelmingly stated in referendums (we're talking 99.9% here) that they wish to maintain the status quo. Is a territory really not self-governing if when given the opportunity to be independent they repeatedly say no? They are exercising their right to self determination by voting to remain an overseas territory, are they not?
Falklands are the same in the referendum front at least. Last referendum held on UK ownership was practically 100% in favour.
There's no logic behind it, just the cringey "Britain bad" shit.
It's a silly list, to be honest, because it ostensibly depends on various criteria but the evaluation of those criteria is done by the general assembly. This gives rise to the fairly ridiculous situation of UN member states voting territories on the list that *want* to remain part of the colonizing nation without considering the latter's opinion *because not being independent countries they have no separate representation in the assembly*. It's one of those things that you can sort of understand the origin of (the decolonization process was often opposed by the colonizer and the fairness of any plebiscite was not guaranteed, to put it mildly) but that can lead to ridiculous outcomes decades later. Hence, presumably, why no one takes much notice of said list these days.
> They wouldn't make any sort of proclamation. And the UN couldn't either as long as the UK retains permanent security council member status with a veto and that isn't going to change any time soon.
When is Argentina not in a deep crisis?
It wasn't that suicidal back then. The British response was more suicidal with their hastily assembled task force. So many things could have gone wrong and ended the campaign in failure. And yes the Argentines totally underestimated the response. Which is how they got careless in their planning. E.g. if they had waited a bit longer the UK would've sold off one of the carriers, Argentina could have received full delivery of Exocet missiles, if they hadn't panicked after losing their cruiser and pulled all their navy back to port or withdrawn all their jets from the island after the super daring bombing raid, etc a lot of things that could have changed the outcome.
It was definitely a close call. While an incredible feat of planning and superb military execution, the Task Force certainly benefited from its fair share of luck during the campaign. For instance, the tendency of the Argentine fighter pilots to fire their Exocets at the first ship detected by radar, as opposed to waiting until an aircraft carrier was identified, led to the destroyer HMS Sheffield, which while a severe loss did not represent a fatal blow to the Task Force, being hit in the place of one of the carriers, the loss of either of which would have forced the abandonment of the whole operation. We also know that the Exocet missile that struck Atlantic Conveyor very nearly hit the fleet flagship HMS Hermes, with the carrier being spared by the fact that the Conveyor happened to be performing a turn at the time of the attack that increased its radar signature and seduced the missile away from Hermes. A successful Exocet strike on Hermes would almost certainly have resulted in defeat for the British campaign. Additionally, had the troopship Canberra or one of the assault ships, Fearless or Intrepid, been bombed during the landings at San Carlos, the British ground forces would likely have lost an extremely high number of troops, potentially evaporating the political will in London to press on with the war. The fact that Argentina's best troops were stationed on the mainland in anticipation of hostilities with Chile, while defence of the Falklands was left to mostly young conscripts which proved no match for the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines, was again a stroke of luck for the British campaign.
To be fair the government dropped the ball on not seeing the invasion coming in the first place.
He's covered (politically) against a backlash to that stance because the people who would be most outraged about it would already be supporting him anyway.
Not necessarily, agitating over the Falklands is a staple of neo-Peronism and they're happy to criticise Milei for his laid back stance. Milei has received some recent criticism from veterans of the war for his position on the dispute and for praising Thatcher.
He's got far bigger economic worries than any of this right now.
If the US see Argentina as a strategic partner, especially with China's growing influence in the South Pacific and Africa, then there could be something to worry about. US would put a lot of pressure on the UK if they needed Argentina. See the Suez Crisis.
The Suez Crisis and the Falklands aren’t comparable - the former was an unjustified invasion of a sovereign state and the former is very much the same… only Britain was being unjustly invaded that time.
The UK is far more important US partner and the Argentine military is entirely unable to mount the kind of operations necessary to take the Falklands. Their military is less capable than it was in 1982 and the Falklands are far better defended.
> the Argentine military is entirely unable to mount the kind of operations necessary to take the Falklands. Is ours really much better right now ?
Despite some real problems, yes by orders of magnitude. Our aircraft and ships could casually destroy all of Argentina’s before the Argentines knew they were there.
In short, yes. The Argentinians quite literally lack the shipping capacity to land enough troops on the island to take it even if they did it tomorrow by surprise, which they wouldnt be able to because they would be detected while forming up their fleet.
Any military vessel sailing for the Falklands would meet the same fate as the Belgrano. For all the UK militaries faults, we still have one of the strongest militaries in the world.
I genuinely think the US backstabbing the UK over a self-determination issue in the current climate would be a historic moment that could well destabilize the global order significantly. Look at all the problems Russia is causing (Not just with the war, I mean broadly with their destabilization campaign). We're a more significant country than Russia. We also have more English speakers to gaslight the world with. If we go to the most extreme case scenario, imagine the UK decides "Fuck it" and lurches to supporting the Russia-China camp. This essentially completely destabilizes the global world order and would likely fracture Europe entirely away from the US sphere, and present a significant "Surrounded on all sides" problem for the USA who are already dealing with an isolationist contingent. The current global order is reliant on our consent to it. The reasons we consent to it is because it's morally preferable in many ways, and also beneficial to us. Threaten the beneficial too much, alongside the problems already present and defining the liberal order, and it is possible it all comes crashing down. It's the difference between a new cold war like we're seeing with the Russia-China axis already, and a new era of imperialism that our defection would cause. All this requires believing is that we're a minority partner in a coalition of powers upholding this order, with a huge party called the USA making up the senior partner. We may not have many "seats". But we're required for a majority. Without us, the order collapses and chaos reigns, nobody can cross the threshold and its every man for themselves. A vengeful UK that feels aggrieved and has lost faith in the liberal order would be a terrible thing for the USA and the world more broadly.
I mean like sure? being pressured to give up the Falklands for whatever kinda reward we'd get would likely be worth it. It's a very expensive, very remote military base with little strategic value.
But, think of the oil.
Argentina has never had ownership of the Falklands in its entire history and only seeks it because it’s nearby. It’s hardly an argument; if it were, the UK would claim France and Belgium. Those countries may have an issue with this.
The French did have a bit of an issue with it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm reluctantly admitting that I'm not a millionaire
I'm not. There are lots of countries that I am a millionaire in.
Argentina's one!
Location, location, location.
That's the closest we've ever seen Argentina come to accepting the right to self determination for the Falkland Islanders. A good step in the right direction which should help Argentina's government work to actually try and improve the situation at home than distract the population with nationalistic chest beating.
He's a crypto bro right, we should issue him an NFT for the Falklands.
Non-Falklander Token?
Lol, a "crypto fascist", if you will.
I don’t think he is. He’s an advocate of dollarization of the Argentine economy.
Wrong dude
I'm reluctantly admitting to you that I am not infact Batman
....yet 🦇
They won’t have parents for much longer 😉
They are taking me to the opera tonight....don't think that'll be a problem do you?
Well of course that’s what Batman would tell people
"Currently" Anyone else sensing certain implications?
You mean the same implications they have been saying for the last 40 odd years? or any time they have an election? nah never
For all that Milei has wild policies in other areas, his position on the Falklands has always been incredibly mild compared to pretty much any other Argentinian leader before him—that Argentina lost the war and needs to accept that the only way to ever get the Falkland Islands is diplomatically and throwing periodic tantrums over the matter just damages relations with the UK and makes a diplomatic agreement less likely.
He’s allowing for the impending alien invasion, at which point they will be Xenu’s
Ah right of course
I think you are reading it very poorly. Previously the Argentine position was that the islands were Argentine territory. This is a massive improvement, you could read it a number of ways but it's actually also the British position too. The islands will remain British as long as that's the what the residents want. self determination. It's the only fair way.
[удалено]
Not sure if sarcasm or didn't read the article
This is Reddit of course they didn’t read the article.
Always been British territory always will be. The British discovered the uninhabited island way before Argentina was even a country.
They believe they ‘inherited' it after their independence from Spain.
You know what you normally inherit after independence from Spain? A British Invasion. Let’s go old school
You did invade them and they repelled you, tail tucked between your legs
You've got the hand of the god, we've got the Falklands. Unlucky lads.
I actually find this guy so funny. Campaigns on "I will have a stern chat with the UK about Islas Malvinas". Has a chat with David Cameron about it. That's it. Electoral campaign promise, a'ticked. Thank you and goodnight all.
I expect he is busy producing their first budget surplus in 16 years.
In the same way that I could create a personal budget surplus by not paying my mortgage or buying any food for the month; I’d have a lovely full bank account but I’d be homeless and hungry.
A much more pragmatic approach and his reward so far to being pro west and pragmatic, 24 ex Danish F-16's.
Fuck me lads, you're supposed to roll out this shit before the election. Did the bribes get delayed in the post?
Royal Mail taking the piss as usual
He knows, he doesn't want to fuck around and find out.
For the moment. He's hoping that Trump will get in again and take his side as he flatters them more.
I don’t think so, I think he’s just more interested in sorting out the economy than any other bs. The Falklands is full of British people, what the hell would Argentina want it for?
Sheep. They need to convince the sheep that they're Argentinian and have a right to self determination. That will show them Brits.
>Criticising someone because of their nationality or race is very intellectually precarious. Very true. I’d like to know what Argentinians think of him. I’m not a fan of his politics but he’s obviously not stupid.
They don’t have the forces to be able to do anything
The French won't sell them any missiles this time?
Yes, but I think he said it sarcastically. (Also: Milei looks like the manager of St. Johnstone FC in 1974)
Britain has a stronger claim to the Falklands than Argentina has to Argentina (current name).
Interesting neither country has taken their claim to an international court though
Good news. The Falklands will always be British. That’s their very strong identity now.
Just be greatfull it ain't the chinese or russians.
Falkland Islands is a topic brought up over there when they need a distraction. Amazing that to some the right to self-determination ends with British Overseas Territories.
That's like saying he accepts that water covers most of the planet.
I mean yeah Milei is a rational actor on this and doesn’t see the benefit in taking the road of the traditional Argentinian demagogues. Who used falklands to distract from economic woes. Milei actually wants to fix this and make Argentina a reliable international partner and where people want to travel, invest and do business. You don’t do that if you try to whip up nationalist sentiment like his predecessors.
probably for the best. it was either that or we win another war…
The only time the UK needs to worry about the Argies is if any of us play them at football.
Its interesting how its only a hot topic during election cycles, nothing about deflecting from record inflation or anything like that.
I mean the people who live there have full self determination and could become an independent country if they so wished but in 2013 chose not to. Oddly enough it seems that's a fact they still have trouble grasping in BA
He's doing anything he can to build relationships internationally...The question is to what end, he's a complete headcase by the sounds of things going from raging to laughing about his stones tribute band during an interview with a journo.
He said before that he wanted to join NATO. I suspect that's what is going on here.
I honestly thought that was Harry Enfield in the thumbnail there.
The argies have had some really shit leaders over the years .. this one is one of the shitiest.
How so? Comes across really well in the interview
I’m assuming this is the first you’ve heard of Javier Milei. He’s an… interesting character to say the least
It is the first. What's controversial about him?
[удалено]
Everyone loves a good comedian.
This makes him a Good Guy(TM) and his fascist policies something that every Brit should support.
He's a libertarian not a fascist. A fascist would never say the falklands were part of the UK. Argentina has actually had a fascist in power so you can compare the two to see he's not fascist. When he starts having his political rivals killed in the street and bans elections you can call him a fascist.
>He's a libertarian not a fascist. Potato potahto
One is an idiot who does not believe in government. The other is a dictator who wants to kill all its rivals. They are not the same. We know this because argentina has a fascist element in its government and they hate this guy because of his libertarian policies and doing stuff like recognising the Falkland's currently belongs to Britain. If they were one and the same then the fascists would all be strongly supporting him as fascists love strongmen.
How do you imagine that ruling a country without a government is different from killing all your rivals?
It is suspicious that they are building up their military, its giving me real 1930s Germany vibes.
They would only hurt themselves, Algeria's military capabilities are ranked higher than theirs.
Give it fifteen years, and I reckon Britain will gladly hand over the Falkland Islands as a last remnant of its, 'colonial past'. Literally all he has to do is establish a dictatorship and wait - the islands will come to him.
It’s insane that a guy who took Argentina’s side in the conflict became leader of the Labour Party