Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

They turned Exocet into a famous name, like the later Scud and Patriot... even if the latter was misplaced.

They could lease some Su-30s with upgraded radars and RVV.BD missiles and those anti ship and land attack missiles...

Argentina corrects "drunken mistake" in relations with Britain, by Alena Zadorozhnaya, Daria Volkova and Evgeny Pozdnyakov for VZGLYAD. 03.04.2023.

Argentina began a new stage of litigation with Britain on the return of the Malvinas Islands.

The long-standing conflict between Argentina and Britain over disputed islands in the South Atlantic has entered a new phase. Buenos Aires decided to break the agreements with London on the Malvinas Islands, which in Britain are called the Falkland Islands. What is the essence of this dispute and why is it of the utmost importance for Russia?

Argentina denounced the so-called Foradori-Duncan agreement. Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero informed his British counterpart James Cleverley about this. The document regulated issues related to the conduct of administrative and economic activities in the area of ​​the Malvinas Islands, which Britain considers its own and calls the Falkland Islands.

In response, the British diplomat noted that these territories belong to the United Kingdom. This decision was confirmed by local residents in a referendum in 2013, TASS reports . Note that Argentina does not recognize the results of the vote.

The Foradori-Duncan Agreement was signed back in 2016. Then the Argentine Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Deputy Minister Carlos Foradori and his British counterpart Alan Duncan agreed to create a mechanism for dialogue between countries and "remove obstacles that limit the economic growth of the Malvinas Islands."

However, already in 2022, Cafiero ordered an investigation due to reports of Foradori's inappropriate behavior at negotiations on the disputed islands, recalls TASS. It was reported that the Argentine was so drunk at the time of the signing that he couldn't remember the details the next day. And this "drunken mistake" cost Buenos Aires dearly.

In general, the dispute over the ownership of the islands has been going on for about 200 years. The fact is that the lands were discovered by the Spaniards, but in 1833 they were colonized by Britain, forcibly expelling the Argentines from there and thereby insulting them.

Argentina tried to return the islands through diplomacy, but this did not bring the desired result. And in 1982 the conflict escalated into a hot phase. Several dozen Argentine workers landed on the uninhabited island of South Georgia . Officially, they arrived there to dismantle the whaling station, but in reality they simply planted the Argentine flag. The British military, of course, did not like this and they tried to expel the "uninvited guests."

Later, the Argentine army arrived in the Malvinas Islands. In response, the then Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, sent a squadron of 40 ships to the islands, after which the Malvins found themselves in a blockade. Subsequent naval battles became the "calling card" of that war. The biggest loss for Buenos Aires then was the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano. By the way, London has lost the destroyer Sheffield.

It is noteworthy that neither side officially declared war on the enemy, but both states recognized that hostilities were taking place on the islands. At the same time, London assured that Buenos Aires had invaded British lands, while Argentina assured that it was about the return of its territories.

The confrontation lasted a little over two months. Despite the success of Argentina at the beginning of the conflict, the war ended with the defeat of Buenos Aires. Communication losses from the Argentines are estimated at 649 people, from the British - 255. The VZGLYAD newspaper wrote in detail why Britain's success in the Falkland Islands was almost accidental.

However, in 1989, the parties decided to restore diplomatic relations, but the dispute over the islands did not go away. Moreover, the territorial affiliation of Malvin is enshrined in the constitution of Argentina.

For Britain, the islands are an important transit point on the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and allow London to control the southern part of the Atlantic.

In Russia, attention has always been paid to the fact that Britain refers to the results of the referendum in 2013 in the issue of the islands. However, when it comes to the territorial affiliation of Crimea or other regions that became part of Russia following the results of referendums, London completely forgets about its own experience.

For this reason, Moscow often points to the "double standards" inherent in British politicians. So, in December last year, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev in his Telegram channel recalled that Britain still controls the Malvinas Islands, which should belong to Argentina.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke with similar rhetoric a year earlier. Speaking at the UN, the diplomat stressed that Western countries forget about the right of peoples to self-determination when it runs counter to their geopolitical interests. “No one is embarrassed that the Malvinas are 12,000 kilometers from Britain,” Lavrov said.

Interlocutors of the VZGLYAD newspaper point out that given the similarity of the problem, Moscow could provide diplomatic support to a friendly state. Moreover, this would have a positive impact on the Russian-Argentine dialogue, they are sure.

In this regard, according to experts, Moscow could provide effective diplomatic support to the friendly Buenos Aires, which would have a positive impact on the dialogue between the two countries. “The theme of belonging to the Malvinas Islands still resonates and is actively discussed by the Argentines. They believe that the country has unfairly lost the most important territories and condemn the British colonial policy, ” said Hispanist and political observer Nikita Kovalenko to the VZGLYAD newspaper.

“The state also supports these sentiments. In different cities of the country in buses you can find leaflets with a reminder of the Malvins. The same goes for airport names. Public institutions are also decorated with relevant posters. However, the Argentines are not yet ready to resolve the dispute with Britain by force,” the source said.

There is also a parallel between the Malvinas and Crimea. “The only difference is that Russia managed to return the peninsulas, but Argentina’s attempt was unsuccessful,” he explained. According to Kovalenko, Russia could more actively support Argentina in this dispute. “Buenos Aires, understanding the current realities, is in solidarity with the policy of counteracting neo-colonialism, referring to the UN Charter. Given that Moscow was the main initiator of the dismantling of the colonial system in the 20th century, and now our country is following the same course, Buenos Aires’ support fully fits into the concept of Russia’s foreign policy,” the source said.

“It is important that Buenos Aires is also interested in cooperation with Moscow. In addition, the Argentines remember how Russia saved them during the pandemic by sending a vaccine against the coronavirus. This step is still regarded as a huge help in a difficult moment. In addition, despite the dominance of Western media in the local information space, the Argentines do not condemn Russia for any actions and are interested in Moscow's position on many issues,” Kovalenko emphasized.

“In general, the issue of ownership of the islands, like any other territorial dispute, is historically complex. If you approach it without bias, then both sides have strong arguments in favor of their own rightness, ”adds Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council.

“Another thing is that Foggy Albion in this matter often refers to the result of a referendum held on the islands in 2013. Then the inhabitants showed a desire to remain part of Britain. Against the backdrop of London's position on Crimea, this looks somewhat ridiculous, ”the interlocutor emphasizes.

“That is, on the one hand, they use the will of the people as the cornerstone of their own argumentation. But at the same time they do not recognize such actions of Russia. Of course, arguments are being applied that Moscow allegedly did not give residents enough time to prepare the vote, did not call observers from the OSCE. However, this is slyness, ” Kortunov clarifies.

“Let's remember the same situation with Kosovo, where there was no question of any referendum. The separation of the whole region from Serbia completely suited the countries of the West. Such factors allow us to say that Britain does not look at the eventual and historical context, but only addresses its own political interests, ”the expert argues.

“In principle, Russia has every right to say that the 2013 vote was invalid. You can also officially approve the Argentine name of the territories - the Malvinas Islands. But the main problem of this crisis is that London will not just give up the land, and Buenos Aires does not have the ability to win it back. Perhaps in the future everything will change,” sums up Kortunov.

https://vz.ru/world/2023/3/4/1201644.html

Actually Russia and Argentina would not be good allies on this, except in the fact that the British hate both countries for not ignoring their law breaking and land theft.

Russia is arguing that the referendums held in the Crimea and now four regions that used to be part of the Ukraine are legal and the people should be allowed to decide what country they are part of, which is the opposite of what Argentina wants in this case and fits in nicely with what the British are saying.

Russia is not really helping Argentina because they are saying the same thing that the British are saying, the only thing they are actually agreeing on is that the British are ignoring international law... but not in the Malvinas... in the former regions of the Ukraine (Crimea et al).

Of course if racism and other things get really bad in London perhaps a region with enough Indians or enough Pakistanis or enough Chinese can have a referendum and decide to become part of India or Pakistan or China respectively... the 12,000km distance does not matter with the Falklands then it should not matter with with other distant places.

Infiltration by breeding and then referendums would allow small weak but populous countries to gain new territories all over the place and it seems it will be OK with the UK.

But as the article points out Britain changes its stance and its views of international law depending on its own views in that situation, which basically says might is right because the rules and laws can be interpreted any way you please to suit yourself so Russia could not argue any case and just supply Argentina with some modern aircraft on a lease basis with very generous terms so it does not upset their economy too much... even with two new carriers I don't think the UK would have the man power or the stomach to have another war... part of the problem for the Argentine forces was training, which was a bit like WWII training, where normal people are hesitant to actually kill other people, whereas new training they become like robots and shoot to kill... which will mean rather more British soldiers are going to die in any future conflict with Argentina... are they ready for that?

Normally Russia would not help kill western soldiers like that, but currently that is what British and western countries are doing in Ukraine to try to kill Russian soldiers so I can see Moscow will be interested in either returning the favour or helping create a cost for the west for their crimes.

The British are very selective about how they apply their morality and ethics, they essentially colonised the islands and then decided that it should be decided by a vote.

Much the same way they would not accept votes on the Marshall Islands or Guam or Crimea or India for that matter.

New Zealand and Australian military forces are kept busy in places like Afghanistan and East Timor... we have no issues in our region so we go to other places to help usually our allies with their problems... which is generally about western interests.

You can't have a good military force if you are riddled with traitors and people with interests that don't align with your countries interests... most colonised countries suffer from that.

The economic situation in the UK and EU makes it look like they wont have much of a navy going forward... with two new carriers both of which have mechanical issues and not enough ships operational to actually operate those carriers without third party support the UK is in a rather dire situation.

Your best bet in my biased opinion, is to cut as many ties as you can with the west and dedicate yourself to rooting out those pro west influencers trying to drag you back to the west and move towards BRICS.

Once your economy starts growing you can invest in yourself and create a better future.

You don't have to Russianise your military, but they do have a few systems that would scare the heck out of the Brits as as their Navy declines they will become more and more vulnerable.

You could start by offering to invest in the islands and then start moving families to live there and create infrastructure to make things better there... the sort of thing white european countries have been doing around the world for many centuries.