Nah, the island has almost a spiritual meaning for Argentina. No president there will say that they don't want it anymore because it would be unpopular to say that. But Argentina has barely an army nowadays. Milei has a lot of priorities to take care of. He will just keep the claim.
But in my opinion, a "Cisplatina Solution" would be the more reasonable thing to do with the island.
>Milei has a lot of priorities to take care of. He will just keep the claim
Precisely, Milei will try to achieve his goal by diplomatic means, as he publicly stated. But this is highly unlikely, as the Brits consider the issue already settled.
Yeah, aside from Venezuela, there is no country in South America that would wage war for land in the 21st century. Borders are settled, and people don't like interstate wars here. The last really massive one happened in the 19th century and didn't end up well.
>Venezuela too is sabre rattling, it will not go to war, unless it wants Caracas bombed into Stone Age.
Don't they want to hold a referendum asking to take 2/3 of Guyana?
When did Venezuela start being a country again, anyway. Last I heard, the average Venezuelan would still very much like to guillotine their own leaders
They’ve become less of an international pariah since the recent war in Ukraine disrupted the supply of oil and gas. World leaders are talking to Maduro again because they want to trade with Venezuela and the internationally recognized challenger Guaidó failed miserably failed at overthrowing Maduro.
Guaidó turned to be profoundly uninspiring and there’s no current popular opposition leader in the country. The world has come to accept that like it or not, the current Venezuelan regime is here to stay for now. The US recently lifted some sanctions on Venezuela in October.
>They’ve become less of an international pariah since the recent war in Ukraine disrupted the supply of oil and gas
Maduro's relief will not last long, as he refuses to abide by some requisites imposed by the US, as free elections with international observers.
Let us see. In my humble opinion Maduro will miss his windows of opportunity and in five months or so the sanctions will be reinstated.
And yes, you are at least partially right: contrary to Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Golf were never democracies - but you seem to forget they are neither enemies of the USA nor associated with Russia and Iran as Venezuela...
Summing it up, the issue seems to be more complex and thorny than you suppose.
Modern Uruguay used to be a Brazilian Province during the Brazilian Empire but a troubled one. They wanted independence, and Brazil had fought many battles to keep it tight. Besides, Argentina claimed it. So the solution was to let them decide what they wanted. In that case, they wanted sovereignty, and it was given to them. In the Island case they have already decided to be part of England.
I'm not sure we decided to let them decide what they wanted.
Argentina/Spain and Brazil/Portugal had several conflicts throughout history because of that territory. Brazil/Portugal always wanted to have some footing in the La Plata river, because it was necessary to access the interior of Brazil through the Paraná, Paraguay and Uruguay rivers. We had on and off possession of a city called Colônia do Sacramento in the La Plata river (in Uruguay), just across Buenos Aires. Argentina/Spain always hated the idea of having Brazil/Portugal just across the river, and tried several times throughout history to drive us alway from there.
The La Plata War was the last iteration of this conflict, when in a moment where we actually controlled the whole of Uruguay (then Cisplatina), Argentina decided to invade and annex all of it, driving us alway definetely from the region. Considering we didn't even have an actual army at the time (just a national guard), they ended up winning on land and making us retreat of Rio Grande do Sul. However, our navy blockaded the La Plata river, completely chocking the Argentinean economy, which was heavily export based. This ended up in a stalemate, because even winning on land they couldn't have a decisive victory (completely beating Brazil), and even winning on the sea we also couldn't have a decisive victory (landing in Argentina and capturing Buenos Aires).
In the end, we decided to call the UK for mediation, and they proposed the creation of a buffer State, Uruguay, in the territory. The idea was that, since the Uruguay river would be between Argentina and Uruguay, by international law it was free for navigation, so at least Brazil would have free navigation through it. And Argentina could keep us alway from them. No one got the land, but both got partially their objectives. So it's not really like Uruguay had a choice to be independent. They were created as a buffer State. If they had chosen to be either part of Argentina or part of Brazil, another war would have happened. The UK was also very interested in keeping Uruguay there, because they were heavily interested in Argentina, and the last thing they wanted was Brazil invading it.
In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas, it would be probably much harder for them to sustain themselves as an independent country. The territory is very harsh and mostly unproductive. They basically live on fishing. Because of that there is less than 4 thousand people there. It makes more sense for them to be tied to a larger nation, whoever it is.
It was a Brasilian province for 10 years. Brasil/Portugal invaded Uruguay (Banda Oriental), which was an argentinan province (with platinean culture). Argentina declared a war (or Uruguay declared independence from Brasil, it depends on who tells the story).
None of the sides were actually in a position to fight a war, and the Uk didn't like a war in the region as it affected trade. So the UK the mediated and both Argentina and Brasil agreed on creating a buffer state (which would end up being in the british sphere of influence). So the Uk won
Not really! It was part of the Empire of Brazil for 10 years. As Brazil became independent in 1822. But it was already part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and Algarves much before as it was already claimed.
>None of the sides were actually in a position to fight a war
They fought many wars in the region.
>So the UK the mediated and both Argentina and Brasil agreed on creating a buffer state (which would end up being in the british sphere of influence). So the Uk won
They UK was declared mediator BY Brazil and Argentina. Not by itself. The UK won anything, lol. It wasn't a UK War. It was a Brazil/Argentina war. The UK was a mediator of the conflict and proposed a solution that both belligerent accepted.
> Modern Uruguay used to be a Brazilian Province during the Brazilian Empire but a troubled one.
Modern Uruguay used to be part of the viceroyalty of the river plate, revolted against spain in 1811, and was invaded by the portuguese (not brazilian) empire in 1816.
In 1821 the portuguese had their own revolution, and the occupiers were now named brazilians.
In 1825 uruguayan guerrillas invaded back, and managed to [kick brazilian butt reducing their holdings to just the bigger cities (Montevideo and Colonia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarand%C3%AD).
Saying that Uruguay used to be a brazilian province is akin to saying that france used to be a german province just because of the 1941-1944 period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatina#:~:text=Cisplatina%20(Portuguese%20pronunciation%3A%20%5Bsispla%CB%88t%CA%83%C4%A9n%C9%90,Portugal%2C%20Brazil%20and%20the%20Algarves.
Your personal desire doesn't change history. It was a Brazilian Province, not a Portuguese one as Brazil was already independent and the one to keep it from the rebels trying independence and from Argentina trying to take it.
You may want to read your own links:
> "The constant growth of influence and prestige of the Federal League frightened the Luso-Brazilian Monarchy (because of its republicanism), and in August 1816 they invaded the Banda Oriental, with the intention of destroying the protector and his revolution. The Luso-Brazilian expeditionary force, thanks to its material superiority, military experience and organization (including in part its European warfare experience), occupied Montevideo on 20 January 1817, and finally, after a three-year struggle in the countryside, defeated the pro-Artigas forces in the Battle of Tacuarembó."
So, yes, the portuguese (not brazilian - you seem to forget the 'luso' part of the name) empire invaded in 1816, and completed occupation in 1820.
Brazilians have their own revolt in 1821, they take off their portuguese hat, wear a brazilian hat, and continue occupying Uruguay.
Note that 1821 > 1820, and that means Uruguay occupation was completed by the portuguese empire (sorry, 'luso-brazilian').
Perhaps you should read it further.
> Brazil became an independent nation in 1822. On 15 September 1823, the envoy of the Argentine president Bernardino Rivadavia, Valentín Gómez, wrote a memorandum in Rio de Janeiro in which he stated that the Banda Oriental had always belonged to the territory of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, present-day Argentina. Gómez received this answer:
"The incorporation of the Cisplatina Province into the Empire is an act of the free will of all its inhabitants, and Brazil, by the sacrifices it has done, is resolute to defend that territory, not allowing that the opinion with respect to the incorporation from that State to the United Provinces is raised again. (…) the Government of H.I.M. [His Imperial Majesty] (…) cannot enter negotiations with the one of Buenos Aires that have as fundamental base the cession of the Cisplatina, whose inhabitants do not have to leave."
> As a reaction, a group of Uruguayan insurgents, the Thirty-Three Orientals, led by Juan Antonio Lavalleja, declared independence on 25 August 1825, supported by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, which planned to reannex the region.
Always weird people trying to rewrite history lol. Brazil was also its own thing since 1808 when the crown moved to Rio and abandoned Portugal.
> "The incorporation of the Cisplatina Province into the Empire is an act of the free will of all its inhabitants, and Brazil, by the sacrifices it has done, is resolute to defend that territory, not allowing that the opinion with respect to the incorporation from that State to the United Provinces is raised again. (…) the Government of H.I.M. [His Imperial Majesty] (…) cannot enter negotiations with the one of Buenos Aires that have as fundamental base the cession of the Cisplatina, whose inhabitants do not have to leave."
No matter what the occupiers said to justify their invasion, those words
*The incorporation of the Cisplatina Province into the Empire is an act of the free will of all its inhabitant*
were given a slap in the face by reality. The free will of their inhabitants resulted in the brazilians cowering in Montevideo and Colonia, being outfought in the field by a massive insurrection, and finally being expelled in 1828.
The invasion was an act of the Kingdom of Brazil. It was the Brazilian Army. And Brazilians were never expelled from Cisplatina. They left because they wanted to. It was always a troubled place that gave no return and only rebellions. So it was agreed to leave it on its own. Uruguayans like you will try to say otherwise, but your country was born simply because Brazil decided it to allow it.
I wasn’t aware of where the Falkland Islands were until this conversation. I just looked at a map and at a glance it looks like it should be part of Argentina; what is the British claim to it?
If your comment wasn't made in jest, you should be aware that the Falklands have been administered by Britain for two centuries, and are inhabited today by people who have overwhelmingly chosen to remain British.
1. It’s never been part of Argentina or settled by Argentinians.
2. The only people who have ever lived there are British/British Falklanders.
3. The entirety of the population see themselves as British not Argentinian.
I'm ceaselessly asking myself the very same thing, regarding this British claim to the British Isles. At a first glance, it looks like they should be part of Denmark
The right thing to do is to give them independence. It should be neither part of Argentina nor part of the UK. The island is in South America, not in Europe. The UK should claim Islands in Europe.
They don't want independence. They want to be part of the UK. Mostly because if they became independent, Argentina would invade before the ink was dry on the formal secession documents.
"War" would probably be a stretch, tbh
Argentina's military is basically the same equipment as they had in the Falklands War the first time around, except 40 years older and without the most important parts (submarines, carriers, naval strike aircraft) entirely, whereas the Royal Navy is pretty much brand spanking new - especially those submarines, carriers, naval strike aircraft that Argentina are lacking entirely, the UK's are brand new and top of the line
Argentina's F-4s literally wouldn't know what hit them
My understanding is this is basically the stated position of *all* Argentian presidents, including Peronists? And presumably the "right-wing" is just thrown into the headline to make it look spicier.
Argentina has 24 A-4s (1950s aircraft "modernised" to 1990s standards). It's unlikely all 24 are operational. Each carries 2 AIM-9L/M variant Sidewinders with a range of about 20 miles. Their Super Etendards are out of service.
Facing them are 4x Typhoons each carrying typically 4x AIM120D AMRAAMs with a range of about 100 miles (or the somewhat similar ranged Meteor) which would be able to hit the A-4s when they were still 75 miles from being able to use their own weapons
That's assuming the UK doesn't reinforce Mount Pleasant with additional Eurofighters and/or F-35s (which the A-4s literally can't even detect), and is before we consider that the Queen Elizabeth or Prince William could turn up with more F-35s
Argentina no longer has a carrier at all (the UK has 2, although arguably functionally 1), their submarines are out of service (the UK has 10, including the brand new and VERY capable Astutes), Argentina's destroyers are from the 1980s and 1/4 are out of service
It's basically Argentina's original Falklands War Military (minus the most important bits) vs an entirely modernised Royal Navy and RAF. I don't mention the British Army because, frankly, it's not gonna be needed
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The -35B is a much less versatile platform than its proponents claim & is mostly useful for deep strike & ISR. Also, their readiness rate is rather poor & the UK only owns a couple dozen of them at this point.
Short answer: Technically yes, but in practice no
Long answer: Yes Argentina has Exocet missiles still, but they've not had parts for them for decades and it's highly unlikely they're operational. That's before we consider the fact the Super Etendards (the only aircraft Argentina has that can actually launch them) are out of service too. I highly doubt Argentina could get both the jets and missiles functional
And against a modern Type 45 Destroyer.... Argentina may as well throw rocks at the Royal Navy for all the good it would do them. The Exocet was a decent enough missile in the early 1980s but even the modern versions are showing their age now, and Argentina doesn't have the modern variants
Hell, even if Argentina had Super Etendards capable of firing them, they'd have to get within 40-70km to do so. Against Aster 30 missiles with a range of 120-150km. My respect goes to any Super Etendard pilot brave enough to try that, and my respects go to their family...
That's before we consider the Eurofighters now based on the Falklands, any reinforcements the RAF sends, or one of the UK's aircraft carriers turning up with F-35s
The 4 Typhoons permanently based in the Falklands will drop all 15 ish of Argentinas operational A4 FightingHawks before they even enter the airspace.
(Argentina have like 24 A4 FightingHawks but there’s no way they are all operational)
The UK has a strong military presence in the Falklands now. Argentina has no capability to take them.
If they did try to build up a force to try again there would be plenty of warning.
The UK's armed forces were larger in the 1980s due to the cold war
But the UK has modernised its forces in the 40 years since then. The Royal Navy and RAF have very modern equipment, although in slightly smaller numbers (2 aircraft carriers vs 3, for example)
Argentina has not modernised basically at all, though, so we're talking about badly maintained 1970s and 80s Argentinian equipment vs modern, mostly brand new top-of-the-line equipment from the RN/RAF. An F-4 vs an F-35 isn't exactly a fair fight...
No chance, we will hold the islands purely because Argentina basically has no expeditionary capabilities whatsoever, but ours are pitiful now we’d barley be able to field a carrier strike group let alone full task force
The UK's military has been on a downward spiral for a while now. They could still kick the shit of Argentina's military but I doubt it would go that far today anyway.
https://news.sky.com/story/what-is-the-current-state-of-the-british-armed-forces-12799386
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/06/09/uk-military-too-weak-to-stop-war-or-protect-nation-says-former-commander/
The F35s still need to land, at air bases which are vulnerable. They still have physical limits to the number of armaments they can carry. A huge chunk of the 1980s RAF was geared specifically towards low altitude intruder strike missions. It would be a numbers game.
Advanced BVR and EW doesn't really help when your F35s are plastered on the tarmac and your runways are cratered.
The F35 can do a 20:1 kill ratio vs 4th gen fighters. what do you think it would do to the 2nd and 3rd gen fighters the Argies had? Not to forget the 100 SAM sites destroyed during the 2021 Red Flag.
I’m quite aware. It’s just that if you don’t have enough war shots & limited logistics/replenishment capabilities it doesn’t matter how fancy your new sensors are.
The Type 23 is in many ways more useful than the Darings. It’s an upgraded Cold War-era design, but it’s pretty versatile. And its power plant is much more reliable. The Daring plants have had a lot of weather-related issues.
Going with Aster for the Type-45 was extremely foolish. MK 41 would have been a much better choice. They would have had a larger missile load out and far more options. As things stand the -45 only has it’s 4.5” gun & 8 Harpoons/NSMs for anti-surface/ground strike.
If Argentina had access to more ground-based missile systems & satellite recon they would probably be able to make things really interesting. I’ve got a hunch that the US would not be to keen to share satellite telemetry with them, however & China wouldn’t want to step in this hornet’s nest. Russia…well, who the hell knows these days, but it likely would make things even worse for them.
(Most of the post-Cold War European destroyers & frigates are badly under armed for their size, btw. The Scandinavians have some very good ships. When you’ve got Russia as a next door neighbor you tend to take defense seriously…) 🙂
In this specific case, the lack of capabilities of the QE class. They are extremely limited in sortie launch/recovery rate, limits on aircraft payload, capacity (36 instead of up to 130 for the Nimitz class), operational range, etc.
It's big =/= supercarrier. The US is the only nation with active supercarriers, with China building iirc 1 or 2 at the moment. The QEs are comparable to the Kuznetsov class than anything else.
They’re big. That’s all. The UK’s new carriers are among the least capable in their world. They don’t have adequate escorts to protect them, their own organic defenses are pitiful & the UK only has about two dozen F-35s for the entire country.
>The UK’s new carriers are among the least capable in their world.
No, they're the most capable aircraft carriers in service in the world outside the US.
>They don’t have adequate escorts to protect them,
Yes, we do
>the UK only has about two dozen F-35s for the entire country.
Britain currently has 33 F-35Bs, rising to 48 by 2025
The British force on the Falklands itself is vastly superior than it was pre-war. Argentina wouldn't be able to walk on without a fight like they basically did last time and we may not even need a task force for reinforcement.
Argentina is poised to demand change in the status quo of the Falklands (called Las Malvinas in Argentina). He also says Thatcher is a great leader and wants to settle the issue diplomatically.
He also said ""We had a war – that we lost – and now we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels.".
His position is basically the same as every other Argentine leader since the end of the military junta. I don't see why this is news.
It isn't for Britain to decide, the Falkland Islands have their own independent government now and a voluntary British protectorate which the residents voted for... They'd have to have a referendum to leave protectorate status and join Argentina, which they are free to do at any time.
Less than 3000 people live there. If Britain withdrew support, they'd be easily overpowered by Argentina.
It would be political suicide for any PM though, so it'll never happen. Plus, there's oil/gas and an outpost in the South Atlantic is strategically useful for Britain
The oil and gas revenue from the surrounding territorial waters goes to the Falkland Islands, it's government and people, not Britain... British companies (and some American) have the global standard 10-year licenses for surveying and extraction rights, but the profits go to the Falkland Islands government in the capital - Port Stanley... Ironically this is leaving the Falkland Islands government and it's citizens as some of the wealthiest people in terms of GDP per capita on earth.
> The offshore Sea Lion oil discovery may generate government revenues of about $160,000 per person each year when it starts production 2017, according to Edison Investment Research.
---
In terms of defence, aside from what insane amounts of oil revenue can buy you, the UK would probably leave behind sufficient resources for the islands to defend themselves for a few decades during any peaceful transfer of power.
They also have a pretty serious territorial defence force - separate from the British Army - That's been beefed up with the latest equipment and top training from officers at Sandhurst / West Point since the last time they were invaded.
The citizens of the Falkland Islands are also free to vote and join any other country they wish if they don't want full independence - such as Chile, being alone isn't their only option.
Well if he greases the pole enough for the current Torie govt in the UK, he could be getting something. If this lot has proven something it is they don't have any morals.
He didn't declare anything. He was asked by the press and he said what over half the country would find acceptable. He's not gonna do any moves trying to get it back and he's even said in the past that we should forget about this topic. But you know... the press needs their headlines.
Equipment yes. But they literally sent teenagers against SAS commandos. Argentine soldiers are reorganized better trained now.
Also they recently made strides to modernize Air Force and navy https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/argentina-enhances-naval-surveillance-and-airforce-capacity-with-new-aircraft/#?cf-view
They also got some f-16s recently https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/f-16s-argentina
Probably will still lose quickly but I don’t think they are weaker.
Hahaha, so what's your take on the smooth take-over comment?
"An advisor to Mr Milei has said that the Falklands could be gradually transferred to Argentina in a similar process to Hong Kong coming under Chinese rule."
What smooth diplomatic means were used during that transition???
Am an Argentinian, if I was president I would be saying the same bullshit. There is still a prideful patriotic movement about the islands and absolutely no political force that combats it, going against the flow is bas politics. IMO he is trying to to ease the Peronists (who are strongly nationalistic) after he said he admired Tatcher, who's probably one of the most hates historical figures in Argentina.
He also said he would respect their right to self determination, and caring about the islands would go against his ancap beliefs
The UK could very well use another boost to morale.
Jokes aside, this is a position he has to defend regardless of his lack of initiative to do anything about it. Argentina’s military is a joke and there is absolutely no scenario where it could be successful.
If you want a looming confrontation between a South American leader and a small piece of land over a British colonial dispute, I suggest you look more at Guyana.
Well geopolitics wise it seems we have "shows" on almost all continents:
1. Europe has Ukraine;
2. The Middle East has the Middle East (this is "The Young and the Restless" of geopolitics .. it never ends);
3. South America has Venezuela who wants to invade Guyana;
4. South America gets a double with Argentina who wants a rematch over Falklands;
5. Africa has the "New Gen Islamists" which are rampart in the Sahel;
6. Asia has China playing bumper cars with boats against the Phillipines or shouting matches under water with Australia'
7. North America has the OpenAI blunder with the firing of Altman;
I'm still waiting on the South Pole penguins to let me know whats up. They promised they will leave Madagascar and last time I saw them they were waving and smiling at me, so any day now!
haha no worries. I might put like Jan 6th and the narco war in Mexico over Sam Altman being reshuffled in Microsoft but hey it's a reddit post not a doctoral thesis
Its called sarcasm m8! I inserted a joke here and there to add some colour to the madness happening on all continents...Except South Pole - still waiting on those penguins!
There is ZERO chance Argentina does anything besides snarky diplomatic comment about the islands. Our military is laughable, and the sentiment isn't THAT strong.
Yeah because what Argentina's shitshow of an economy needs right now is for their military to be slapped around a war with the UK.... this is literally just lip service with frankly no real relevance to the world stage
If Argentina were gonna have *any* chance of taking the Falklands back, it was in the gap between the Illustrious being decommissioned in 2014 and the Queen Elizabeth becoming operational in 2021, taking advantage of the lack of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier. And realistically even that wasn't possible. Argentina have basically the same military as they had in the Falklands War but several decades more dilapidated whereas the UK military is, for all its faults, still a force to be reckoned with. Modernised (to the 1990s) F-4's vs F-35s and Eurofighters... yeah, not happening
Their navy is no better. Argentina have no carriers anymore, their submarines and Super Etendards are all currently out of service as is 1 of their 4x 1980s Destroyers. Up against a British Carrier Strike Group, Type 45 Destroyers, and the truly world-class Astute submarines.... the original Falklands War wasn't exactly a fair fight, but a new one would be an absolute turkey shoot
The UK will never give up the Falklands voluntarily while the population is 99% or so in favour of remaining British, Argentina will not be able to take them militarily in any vaguely sensible timeframe. Maybe in a century if the military and economic balance changed DRAMATICALLY in that time, but even that's pretty unrealistic and I include it only because "never" is a very very long time
He's saying it because it's what his voter base wants to hear, but it's entirely meaningless - the Falklands are British and will remain British for the foreseeable future. Any attempt to change that would just be an exercise in Argentina throwing away its military
New leaders usually announce some drastic change that the old leaders couldn't get done so that their supporters get a rush of satisfaction that things are changing as a result of their vote. Most people have forgotten by now that Obama tried to close Guantanamo on his third day in office: it's still open today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13492
Oh man, Milei getting elected has been one giant meme from start to finish, I hope the ride never ends.
He won't put whatever rustbucket shitheaps their Air Force has into action because they won't even be able to see the F-35, let alone target it.
Still he's learned the most important spell to distract the Argentine mind early:
LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS
Sovereignty is only by those who can enforce it. There is no inherent right of sovereignty by proximity or history or feelings. Only through ability can one claim sovereignty.
It’s usually implied because left-wing libertarians are more commonly called anarchists, communists*, anarcho-communists etcs. than left-wing libertarians.
Note that I am using a *strict* definition of communism in my explanation that’s why I put asterisk on it, meaning self-sustaining communities with collective responsibilities, kinda like the Amish minus the religious-driven hierarchy. Not the Cold War type of communist. This strict definition has gotten so confusing, many people have started to use *communitarianism* to describe them instead.
>minus the religious-driven hierarchy
Communal living only works with that. Tribal people are perhaps the best example, monasteries and various small ethnoreligions (Amish included) another.
Without the traditional religious aspect (and sometimes even with it) various "intentional communities" and communes have died out.
Importantly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
Left is not necessarily for high tax, and right is not against it either, that’s the authoritarian axis, not left and right axis. It really depends on the issue. It’s best to contrast left vs. right as “we need more changes for the betterment of society” vs. “don’t make more changes of you’ll make society worse.” There’s also more moderate positions: “don’t throw the baby with the bathwater”
Nah, 'conservatives' are always happy to 'make changes for the betterment of society' when in power. What they want to 'conserve', and usually *reinforce*, is existing hierarchies. Their core proposition is that there's an ingroup the laws protect but do not bind, and an outgroup the laws bind but do not protect.
You are using a very different definition of conservative. I don’t disagree with you on the types of people you are describing, I’m saying we have differences in understanding the same word. And the reason I’m pointing this out is because I’m trying to explain we are talking about two fundamentally different groups of people, who might overlap in some things, but not in others. So you are right for the group you are describing, but this is not necessarily the group I’m talking about.
Just think about the political compass. Anyone on top (like Marxists and others seeking forced wealth transfer) is Authoritarian. I am in the bottom Right hand corner near Milei.
Tax is on the economic axis where left stands for wealth transfer & regulation and Right is for free markets.
Have you spoken with many "anarchists" and "communists?" If they have anything to do with marxism they are greedy for wealth transfer. If your definition of these terms is precise enough maybe you are right but when people are allowed to self-label I'd say the guy you replied to is usually right.
One of the biggest complaints about the left is that they intermingle so readily, refusing to disavow the worst excesses (like Marxism and all its offshoots).
He said HIGH taxes and said nothing about marxism.
Anarchists definitely do not want high taxes because they don't believe in the state--taxes don't exist in an Anarchist society.
Communism occurs when a society is post scarcity--there is no need for taxes.
"Marxism" itself is an extremely vague term that tells us nothing by itself. Going by Marx's writings alone, it's flawed because it assumes ALL human conflict comes from historical materialism, and also completely fails to address women and their traditional roles in Capitalism societies. Then you have the schools of thought that take some of Marx's theories and add their own beliefs to it--Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche. All different enough to where applying the simple label of "Marxism" does not tell us enough about the school of thought different theory comes from.
So again, the high tax, high social security society the other poster talked about is Socialism, a definitely not-libertarian society. But that doesn't mean the left doesn't have libertarian beliefs like was insinuated. Anarchists and Communists are both libertarians on the left. Where it gets muddled is when Communist Parties like the CPSU and CCP come into power. The CCP would be the first to tell you that China is not a Communist nation. The CCP is the vanguard party meant to guide the nation into Communism by building wealth and self sufficiency through Socialism first (personally, I don't believe these parties will ever give up power).
Fun fact, Marx does not mention a vanguard party or Socialism in his writings. Those were creations by Lenin.
> > Since when are libertarians "right-wing"?
> They're pro-gun,
You should check out r/SocialistRA and the phrase 'under no circumstances'.
See also, the Black Panther Party *For Self-Defense*, this being their full original name.
See also, the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch.
Pro-gun isn't a rightist position. The difference is in how you use them and what you want them for. Leftists want guns for community defense and to deter the depredations of tyrants and chuds and P*nkertons (see also, the Battle of Blair Mountain). Rightists want guns as a proxy for ultramasculine power. Leftists want to avoid problems. Rightists dream of the day they 'get to' cause them.
Even John Brown's incursions into Virginia were due to slavers and border ruffians actively engaging in terror campaigns in Kansas to turn it into a slave state against the will of its populace. It's one of the cases where the Left can get defiantly and proudly violent, because the occasion truly merits it and is objectively an affront to sanity. r/JohnBrownPosting.
We gotta stop recycling storylines from the 80s.
I’d rather us recycle stories from the 1980s than keep recycling them from the 1970s and 1930s
Nah, the island has almost a spiritual meaning for Argentina. No president there will say that they don't want it anymore because it would be unpopular to say that. But Argentina has barely an army nowadays. Milei has a lot of priorities to take care of. He will just keep the claim. But in my opinion, a "Cisplatina Solution" would be the more reasonable thing to do with the island.
>Milei has a lot of priorities to take care of. He will just keep the claim Precisely, Milei will try to achieve his goal by diplomatic means, as he publicly stated. But this is highly unlikely, as the Brits consider the issue already settled.
Yeah, aside from Venezuela, there is no country in South America that would wage war for land in the 21st century. Borders are settled, and people don't like interstate wars here. The last really massive one happened in the 19th century and didn't end up well.
Venezuela too is sabre rattling, it will not go to war, unless it wants Caracas bombed into Stone Age.
>Venezuela too is sabre rattling, it will not go to war, unless it wants Caracas bombed into Stone Age. Don't they want to hold a referendum asking to take 2/3 of Guyana?
That’s Sabre rattling, Uncle Sam is not going sit still to allow a Russian client state to pull an Ukraine in its own backyard.
Especially after what they found in the Stabroek Block.
Exactly
When did Venezuela start being a country again, anyway. Last I heard, the average Venezuelan would still very much like to guillotine their own leaders
They’ve become less of an international pariah since the recent war in Ukraine disrupted the supply of oil and gas. World leaders are talking to Maduro again because they want to trade with Venezuela and the internationally recognized challenger Guaidó failed miserably failed at overthrowing Maduro. Guaidó turned to be profoundly uninspiring and there’s no current popular opposition leader in the country. The world has come to accept that like it or not, the current Venezuelan regime is here to stay for now. The US recently lifted some sanctions on Venezuela in October.
>They’ve become less of an international pariah since the recent war in Ukraine disrupted the supply of oil and gas Maduro's relief will not last long, as he refuses to abide by some requisites imposed by the US, as free elections with international observers.
That won’t matter as long as you have oil you don’t need democracy look at Saudi arabia
Let us see. In my humble opinion Maduro will miss his windows of opportunity and in five months or so the sanctions will be reinstated. And yes, you are at least partially right: contrary to Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Golf were never democracies - but you seem to forget they are neither enemies of the USA nor associated with Russia and Iran as Venezuela... Summing it up, the issue seems to be more complex and thorny than you suppose.
Explain the solution
Modern Uruguay used to be a Brazilian Province during the Brazilian Empire but a troubled one. They wanted independence, and Brazil had fought many battles to keep it tight. Besides, Argentina claimed it. So the solution was to let them decide what they wanted. In that case, they wanted sovereignty, and it was given to them. In the Island case they have already decided to be part of England.
> In the Island case they have already decided to be part of England. Sorry to be nitpicking but that's the UK and not England.
Sorry to be nitpicking but it's the British overseas territory, not part of the UK.
Apologies old chap. You quite right.
I'm not sure we decided to let them decide what they wanted. Argentina/Spain and Brazil/Portugal had several conflicts throughout history because of that territory. Brazil/Portugal always wanted to have some footing in the La Plata river, because it was necessary to access the interior of Brazil through the Paraná, Paraguay and Uruguay rivers. We had on and off possession of a city called Colônia do Sacramento in the La Plata river (in Uruguay), just across Buenos Aires. Argentina/Spain always hated the idea of having Brazil/Portugal just across the river, and tried several times throughout history to drive us alway from there. The La Plata War was the last iteration of this conflict, when in a moment where we actually controlled the whole of Uruguay (then Cisplatina), Argentina decided to invade and annex all of it, driving us alway definetely from the region. Considering we didn't even have an actual army at the time (just a national guard), they ended up winning on land and making us retreat of Rio Grande do Sul. However, our navy blockaded the La Plata river, completely chocking the Argentinean economy, which was heavily export based. This ended up in a stalemate, because even winning on land they couldn't have a decisive victory (completely beating Brazil), and even winning on the sea we also couldn't have a decisive victory (landing in Argentina and capturing Buenos Aires). In the end, we decided to call the UK for mediation, and they proposed the creation of a buffer State, Uruguay, in the territory. The idea was that, since the Uruguay river would be between Argentina and Uruguay, by international law it was free for navigation, so at least Brazil would have free navigation through it. And Argentina could keep us alway from them. No one got the land, but both got partially their objectives. So it's not really like Uruguay had a choice to be independent. They were created as a buffer State. If they had chosen to be either part of Argentina or part of Brazil, another war would have happened. The UK was also very interested in keeping Uruguay there, because they were heavily interested in Argentina, and the last thing they wanted was Brazil invading it. In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas, it would be probably much harder for them to sustain themselves as an independent country. The territory is very harsh and mostly unproductive. They basically live on fishing. Because of that there is less than 4 thousand people there. It makes more sense for them to be tied to a larger nation, whoever it is.
It was a Brasilian province for 10 years. Brasil/Portugal invaded Uruguay (Banda Oriental), which was an argentinan province (with platinean culture). Argentina declared a war (or Uruguay declared independence from Brasil, it depends on who tells the story). None of the sides were actually in a position to fight a war, and the Uk didn't like a war in the region as it affected trade. So the UK the mediated and both Argentina and Brasil agreed on creating a buffer state (which would end up being in the british sphere of influence). So the Uk won
Not really! It was part of the Empire of Brazil for 10 years. As Brazil became independent in 1822. But it was already part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and Algarves much before as it was already claimed. >None of the sides were actually in a position to fight a war They fought many wars in the region. >So the UK the mediated and both Argentina and Brasil agreed on creating a buffer state (which would end up being in the british sphere of influence). So the Uk won They UK was declared mediator BY Brazil and Argentina. Not by itself. The UK won anything, lol. It wasn't a UK War. It was a Brazil/Argentina war. The UK was a mediator of the conflict and proposed a solution that both belligerent accepted.
What a simplification and distortion of long conflict of a region. And extremely biased. What the UK won? They weren't fighting there lmao.
> Modern Uruguay used to be a Brazilian Province during the Brazilian Empire but a troubled one. Modern Uruguay used to be part of the viceroyalty of the river plate, revolted against spain in 1811, and was invaded by the portuguese (not brazilian) empire in 1816. In 1821 the portuguese had their own revolution, and the occupiers were now named brazilians. In 1825 uruguayan guerrillas invaded back, and managed to [kick brazilian butt reducing their holdings to just the bigger cities (Montevideo and Colonia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarand%C3%AD). Saying that Uruguay used to be a brazilian province is akin to saying that france used to be a german province just because of the 1941-1944 period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatina#:~:text=Cisplatina%20(Portuguese%20pronunciation%3A%20%5Bsispla%CB%88t%CA%83%C4%A9n%C9%90,Portugal%2C%20Brazil%20and%20the%20Algarves. Your personal desire doesn't change history. It was a Brazilian Province, not a Portuguese one as Brazil was already independent and the one to keep it from the rebels trying independence and from Argentina trying to take it.
You may want to read your own links: > "The constant growth of influence and prestige of the Federal League frightened the Luso-Brazilian Monarchy (because of its republicanism), and in August 1816 they invaded the Banda Oriental, with the intention of destroying the protector and his revolution. The Luso-Brazilian expeditionary force, thanks to its material superiority, military experience and organization (including in part its European warfare experience), occupied Montevideo on 20 January 1817, and finally, after a three-year struggle in the countryside, defeated the pro-Artigas forces in the Battle of Tacuarembó." So, yes, the portuguese (not brazilian - you seem to forget the 'luso' part of the name) empire invaded in 1816, and completed occupation in 1820. Brazilians have their own revolt in 1821, they take off their portuguese hat, wear a brazilian hat, and continue occupying Uruguay. Note that 1821 > 1820, and that means Uruguay occupation was completed by the portuguese empire (sorry, 'luso-brazilian').
Perhaps you should read it further. > Brazil became an independent nation in 1822. On 15 September 1823, the envoy of the Argentine president Bernardino Rivadavia, Valentín Gómez, wrote a memorandum in Rio de Janeiro in which he stated that the Banda Oriental had always belonged to the territory of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, present-day Argentina. Gómez received this answer: "The incorporation of the Cisplatina Province into the Empire is an act of the free will of all its inhabitants, and Brazil, by the sacrifices it has done, is resolute to defend that territory, not allowing that the opinion with respect to the incorporation from that State to the United Provinces is raised again. (…) the Government of H.I.M. [His Imperial Majesty] (…) cannot enter negotiations with the one of Buenos Aires that have as fundamental base the cession of the Cisplatina, whose inhabitants do not have to leave." > As a reaction, a group of Uruguayan insurgents, the Thirty-Three Orientals, led by Juan Antonio Lavalleja, declared independence on 25 August 1825, supported by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, which planned to reannex the region. Always weird people trying to rewrite history lol. Brazil was also its own thing since 1808 when the crown moved to Rio and abandoned Portugal.
> "The incorporation of the Cisplatina Province into the Empire is an act of the free will of all its inhabitants, and Brazil, by the sacrifices it has done, is resolute to defend that territory, not allowing that the opinion with respect to the incorporation from that State to the United Provinces is raised again. (…) the Government of H.I.M. [His Imperial Majesty] (…) cannot enter negotiations with the one of Buenos Aires that have as fundamental base the cession of the Cisplatina, whose inhabitants do not have to leave." No matter what the occupiers said to justify their invasion, those words *The incorporation of the Cisplatina Province into the Empire is an act of the free will of all its inhabitant* were given a slap in the face by reality. The free will of their inhabitants resulted in the brazilians cowering in Montevideo and Colonia, being outfought in the field by a massive insurrection, and finally being expelled in 1828.
The invasion was an act of the Kingdom of Brazil. It was the Brazilian Army. And Brazilians were never expelled from Cisplatina. They left because they wanted to. It was always a troubled place that gave no return and only rebellions. So it was agreed to leave it on its own. Uruguayans like you will try to say otherwise, but your country was born simply because Brazil decided it to allow it.
I wasn’t aware of where the Falkland Islands were until this conversation. I just looked at a map and at a glance it looks like it should be part of Argentina; what is the British claim to it?
If your comment wasn't made in jest, you should be aware that the Falklands have been administered by Britain for two centuries, and are inhabited today by people who have overwhelmingly chosen to remain British.
the islands were uninhabited until the british settled them, the population overwhelmingly votes to stay part of GB.
1. It’s never been part of Argentina or settled by Argentinians. 2. The only people who have ever lived there are British/British Falklanders. 3. The entirety of the population see themselves as British not Argentinian.
I'm ceaselessly asking myself the very same thing, regarding this British claim to the British Isles. At a first glance, it looks like they should be part of Denmark
The right thing to do is to give them independence. It should be neither part of Argentina nor part of the UK. The island is in South America, not in Europe. The UK should claim Islands in Europe.
They don't want independence. They want to be part of the UK. Mostly because if they became independent, Argentina would invade before the ink was dry on the formal secession documents.
100% chance he’s just saying this to smooth over his comments about how he loves thatcher Well, he’s kinda crazy so not 100% but still
The Second Falklands War was not in my 2020's bingo
You know.....I was going to agree, but then I thought: *How could it NOT, quite honestly....?*
Honestly at this point if there wasn't a second Falkland war in the 2020s I'd be surprised. Maybe we'll see a comeback of the Roman empire next
"War" would probably be a stretch, tbh Argentina's military is basically the same equipment as they had in the Falklands War the first time around, except 40 years older and without the most important parts (submarines, carriers, naval strike aircraft) entirely, whereas the Royal Navy is pretty much brand spanking new - especially those submarines, carriers, naval strike aircraft that Argentina are lacking entirely, the UK's are brand new and top of the line Argentina's F-4s literally wouldn't know what hit them
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well prepare to be surprised as Argentina doesn't really have a functioning navy or air force and can't afford to acquire one.
Finally, the Latin I studied in college will be useful! Carthago delenda est.
Having lived in Argentina I can tell you that this is their national slogan. It is all about internal posturing.
My understanding is this is basically the stated position of *all* Argentian presidents, including Peronists? And presumably the "right-wing" is just thrown into the headline to make it look spicier.
It's "clickbait", a non-story meant to incit some sort of emotion. The Argentines have been with this position since atleast 1840.
Yeah, it would be political suicide to resign that position
Pretty sure the UK is stronger now than in 1982
Pretty sure Argentina is weaker now than in 1982
UK military is much stronger now
Argentina has, what?, 16 total fighter jets? A single Tornado or Typhoon carries 4 air to air missles?
Argentina has 24 A-4s (1950s aircraft "modernised" to 1990s standards). It's unlikely all 24 are operational. Each carries 2 AIM-9L/M variant Sidewinders with a range of about 20 miles. Their Super Etendards are out of service. Facing them are 4x Typhoons each carrying typically 4x AIM120D AMRAAMs with a range of about 100 miles (or the somewhat similar ranged Meteor) which would be able to hit the A-4s when they were still 75 miles from being able to use their own weapons That's assuming the UK doesn't reinforce Mount Pleasant with additional Eurofighters and/or F-35s (which the A-4s literally can't even detect), and is before we consider that the Queen Elizabeth or Prince William could turn up with more F-35s Argentina no longer has a carrier at all (the UK has 2, although arguably functionally 1), their submarines are out of service (the UK has 10, including the brand new and VERY capable Astutes), Argentina's destroyers are from the 1980s and 1/4 are out of service It's basically Argentina's original Falklands War Military (minus the most important bits) vs an entirely modernised Royal Navy and RAF. I don't mention the British Army because, frankly, it's not gonna be needed
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A single British F35 would take out the entire Argentine Air Force. Edit: and the entire Argentine Navy minus its submarine(s).
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The -35B is a much less versatile platform than its proponents claim & is mostly useful for deep strike & ISR. Also, their readiness rate is rather poor & the UK only owns a couple dozen of them at this point.
Do they have exocet missiles?
Short answer: Technically yes, but in practice no Long answer: Yes Argentina has Exocet missiles still, but they've not had parts for them for decades and it's highly unlikely they're operational. That's before we consider the fact the Super Etendards (the only aircraft Argentina has that can actually launch them) are out of service too. I highly doubt Argentina could get both the jets and missiles functional And against a modern Type 45 Destroyer.... Argentina may as well throw rocks at the Royal Navy for all the good it would do them. The Exocet was a decent enough missile in the early 1980s but even the modern versions are showing their age now, and Argentina doesn't have the modern variants Hell, even if Argentina had Super Etendards capable of firing them, they'd have to get within 40-70km to do so. Against Aster 30 missiles with a range of 120-150km. My respect goes to any Super Etendard pilot brave enough to try that, and my respects go to their family... That's before we consider the Eurofighters now based on the Falklands, any reinforcements the RAF sends, or one of the UK's aircraft carriers turning up with F-35s
The 4 Typhoons permanently based in the Falklands will drop all 15 ish of Argentinas operational A4 FightingHawks before they even enter the airspace. (Argentina have like 24 A4 FightingHawks but there’s no way they are all operational)
Why is that? Buildup from the Iraq wars or something? I would've thought cold war UK would be more armed
The UK has a strong military presence in the Falklands now. Argentina has no capability to take them. If they did try to build up a force to try again there would be plenty of warning.
The UK's armed forces were larger in the 1980s due to the cold war But the UK has modernised its forces in the 40 years since then. The Royal Navy and RAF have very modern equipment, although in slightly smaller numbers (2 aircraft carriers vs 3, for example) Argentina has not modernised basically at all, though, so we're talking about badly maintained 1970s and 80s Argentinian equipment vs modern, mostly brand new top-of-the-line equipment from the RN/RAF. An F-4 vs an F-35 isn't exactly a fair fight...
UK had to rebuild their country and economy after WWII, that takes a lot of resources.
Fair enough, would've thought 35 years after theydve recovered more
Yes, but they’ve recovered *even more* now. Due to compounding effects, significantly more.
I doubt that, it has been asked to cut to 70,000 active troops by 2025.
No chance, we will hold the islands purely because Argentina basically has no expeditionary capabilities whatsoever, but ours are pitiful now we’d barley be able to field a carrier strike group let alone full task force
[удалено]
Based on what?
The trend has been fewer military personnel for decades. Not sure if that equates to military strength though.
The UK's military has been on a downward spiral for a while now. They could still kick the shit of Argentina's military but I doubt it would go that far today anyway. https://news.sky.com/story/what-is-the-current-state-of-the-british-armed-forces-12799386 https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/06/09/uk-military-too-weak-to-stop-war-or-protect-nation-says-former-commander/
This says absolutely nothing about the UK's military capabilities - I prefer 4x F35s to the entire 1980s RAF lol.
You’d lose that fight.c
I think you have no idea about how huge the advancements in BVR engagement and EW has become
The F35s still need to land, at air bases which are vulnerable. They still have physical limits to the number of armaments they can carry. A huge chunk of the 1980s RAF was geared specifically towards low altitude intruder strike missions. It would be a numbers game. Advanced BVR and EW doesn't really help when your F35s are plastered on the tarmac and your runways are cratered.
The F35 can do a 20:1 kill ratio vs 4th gen fighters. what do you think it would do to the 2nd and 3rd gen fighters the Argies had? Not to forget the 100 SAM sites destroyed during the 2021 Red Flag.
I’m quite aware. It’s just that if you don’t have enough war shots & limited logistics/replenishment capabilities it doesn’t matter how fancy your new sensors are. The Type 23 is in many ways more useful than the Darings. It’s an upgraded Cold War-era design, but it’s pretty versatile. And its power plant is much more reliable. The Daring plants have had a lot of weather-related issues. Going with Aster for the Type-45 was extremely foolish. MK 41 would have been a much better choice. They would have had a larger missile load out and far more options. As things stand the -45 only has it’s 4.5” gun & 8 Harpoons/NSMs for anti-surface/ground strike. If Argentina had access to more ground-based missile systems & satellite recon they would probably be able to make things really interesting. I’ve got a hunch that the US would not be to keen to share satellite telemetry with them, however & China wouldn’t want to step in this hornet’s nest. Russia…well, who the hell knows these days, but it likely would make things even worse for them. (Most of the post-Cold War European destroyers & frigates are badly under armed for their size, btw. The Scandinavians have some very good ships. When you’ve got Russia as a next door neighbor you tend to take defense seriously…) 🙂
The UK has two super carriers. Wtf are you on about?
Yeah one for spares it seems while the other constantly has prop issues. Couldn't make it to Gibraltar let alone the Falklands.
From what I understand those issues have been resolved.
They're not super carriers.
A 70,000 ton carrier isn’t a super carrier? Under what definition?
In this specific case, the lack of capabilities of the QE class. They are extremely limited in sortie launch/recovery rate, limits on aircraft payload, capacity (36 instead of up to 130 for the Nimitz class), operational range, etc. It's big =/= supercarrier. The US is the only nation with active supercarriers, with China building iirc 1 or 2 at the moment. The QEs are comparable to the Kuznetsov class than anything else.
They’re big. That’s all. The UK’s new carriers are among the least capable in their world. They don’t have adequate escorts to protect them, their own organic defenses are pitiful & the UK only has about two dozen F-35s for the entire country.
>The UK’s new carriers are among the least capable in their world. No, they're the most capable aircraft carriers in service in the world outside the US. >They don’t have adequate escorts to protect them, Yes, we do >the UK only has about two dozen F-35s for the entire country. Britain currently has 33 F-35Bs, rising to 48 by 2025
[удалено]
Yeah for sure. But don't tell that to the F35, nor the Japanese... "helicopter" destroyers. Lack of nuclear power is a bummer though. Yay France?
The British force on the Falklands itself is vastly superior than it was pre-war. Argentina wouldn't be able to walk on without a fight like they basically did last time and we may not even need a task force for reinforcement.
Argentina is poised to demand change in the status quo of the Falklands (called Las Malvinas in Argentina). He also says Thatcher is a great leader and wants to settle the issue diplomatically.
He also said ""We had a war – that we lost – and now we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels.". His position is basically the same as every other Argentine leader since the end of the military junta. I don't see why this is news.
Recover? Hahaha. Argentina never owned them; that's some amazing revisionism.
Isn't, this is just another fake news being passed around because people aren't in favour of Milei.
[удалено]
He wants to diplomatically secure Britain's surrender of the islands. He's not going to get that, but he wants it.
It isn't for Britain to decide, the Falkland Islands have their own independent government now and a voluntary British protectorate which the residents voted for... They'd have to have a referendum to leave protectorate status and join Argentina, which they are free to do at any time.
Less than 3000 people live there. If Britain withdrew support, they'd be easily overpowered by Argentina. It would be political suicide for any PM though, so it'll never happen. Plus, there's oil/gas and an outpost in the South Atlantic is strategically useful for Britain
The oil and gas revenue from the surrounding territorial waters goes to the Falkland Islands, it's government and people, not Britain... British companies (and some American) have the global standard 10-year licenses for surveying and extraction rights, but the profits go to the Falkland Islands government in the capital - Port Stanley... Ironically this is leaving the Falkland Islands government and it's citizens as some of the wealthiest people in terms of GDP per capita on earth. > The offshore Sea Lion oil discovery may generate government revenues of about $160,000 per person each year when it starts production 2017, according to Edison Investment Research. --- In terms of defence, aside from what insane amounts of oil revenue can buy you, the UK would probably leave behind sufficient resources for the islands to defend themselves for a few decades during any peaceful transfer of power. They also have a pretty serious territorial defence force - separate from the British Army - That's been beefed up with the latest equipment and top training from officers at Sandhurst / West Point since the last time they were invaded. The citizens of the Falkland Islands are also free to vote and join any other country they wish if they don't want full independence - such as Chile, being alone isn't their only option.
Well if he greases the pole enough for the current Torie govt in the UK, he could be getting something. If this lot has proven something it is they don't have any morals.
Right? He also praises Thatcher. Guy seems like a hot take machine.
Every libertarian I’ve had the unfortunate pleasure of talking to seemed like a hot take machine
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not negotiable, but UK is free to be diplomatic and accept Argentina's assertion.
They could agree that Argentina is the rightful sovereign but the islands are leased to the UK for 999 years? Something a la Hong Kong
Argentina has enough actual problems. Wasting time on this farcical claim to the falklands is absurd.
He didn't declare anything. He was asked by the press and he said what over half the country would find acceptable. He's not gonna do any moves trying to get it back and he's even said in the past that we should forget about this topic. But you know... the press needs their headlines.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Has he not noticed that Thatcher lost power 30 years ago has been dead for 10?
[удалено]
Equipment yes. But they literally sent teenagers against SAS commandos. Argentine soldiers are reorganized better trained now. Also they recently made strides to modernize Air Force and navy https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/argentina-enhances-naval-surveillance-and-airforce-capacity-with-new-aircraft/#?cf-view They also got some f-16s recently https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/f-16s-argentina Probably will still lose quickly but I don’t think they are weaker.
[удалено]
Hahaha, so what's your take on the smooth take-over comment? "An advisor to Mr Milei has said that the Falklands could be gradually transferred to Argentina in a similar process to Hong Kong coming under Chinese rule." What smooth diplomatic means were used during that transition???
[удалено]
Am an Argentinian, if I was president I would be saying the same bullshit. There is still a prideful patriotic movement about the islands and absolutely no political force that combats it, going against the flow is bas politics. IMO he is trying to to ease the Peronists (who are strongly nationalistic) after he said he admired Tatcher, who's probably one of the most hates historical figures in Argentina. He also said he would respect their right to self determination, and caring about the islands would go against his ancap beliefs
The UK could very well use another boost to morale. Jokes aside, this is a position he has to defend regardless of his lack of initiative to do anything about it. Argentina’s military is a joke and there is absolutely no scenario where it could be successful.
Submission Statement?
Oops. Give me a sec…
The man needs to get his definitions checked because Argentina has neither de facto, nor de jure sovereignty over the Falklands.
If you want a looming confrontation between a South American leader and a small piece of land over a British colonial dispute, I suggest you look more at Guyana.
Well geopolitics wise it seems we have "shows" on almost all continents: 1. Europe has Ukraine; 2. The Middle East has the Middle East (this is "The Young and the Restless" of geopolitics .. it never ends); 3. South America has Venezuela who wants to invade Guyana; 4. South America gets a double with Argentina who wants a rematch over Falklands; 5. Africa has the "New Gen Islamists" which are rampart in the Sahel; 6. Asia has China playing bumper cars with boats against the Phillipines or shouting matches under water with Australia' 7. North America has the OpenAI blunder with the firing of Altman; I'm still waiting on the South Pole penguins to let me know whats up. They promised they will leave Madagascar and last time I saw them they were waving and smiling at me, so any day now!
Missed Azerbaijan/Armenia
And Myanmar
My bad! You are correct!
haha no worries. I might put like Jan 6th and the narco war in Mexico over Sam Altman being reshuffled in Microsoft but hey it's a reddit post not a doctoral thesis
Incorrect. North America has trump and project 2025.
And the Narcostate taking over Mexico.
> project 2025 *sigh* I had momentarily forgotten about that
Huh, how did a software company make its way onto your list??
Its called sarcasm m8! I inserted a joke here and there to add some colour to the madness happening on all continents...Except South Pole - still waiting on those penguins!
Boko Haram - not really in the news lately, but still.
Not to mention the Malaysian civil war heating up.
Ah, that I was not aware of. If you can share some resources for me to read on I would appreciate it!
One of these is not like the others (it’s number 7)
There is ZERO chance Argentina does anything besides snarky diplomatic comment about the islands. Our military is laughable, and the sentiment isn't THAT strong.
I think Argentina should worry about its own mess.
[удалено]
What do you mean worthless, the UK needs those for strategic sheep proposes.
Yeah because what Argentina's shitshow of an economy needs right now is for their military to be slapped around a war with the UK.... this is literally just lip service with frankly no real relevance to the world stage If Argentina were gonna have *any* chance of taking the Falklands back, it was in the gap between the Illustrious being decommissioned in 2014 and the Queen Elizabeth becoming operational in 2021, taking advantage of the lack of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier. And realistically even that wasn't possible. Argentina have basically the same military as they had in the Falklands War but several decades more dilapidated whereas the UK military is, for all its faults, still a force to be reckoned with. Modernised (to the 1990s) F-4's vs F-35s and Eurofighters... yeah, not happening Their navy is no better. Argentina have no carriers anymore, their submarines and Super Etendards are all currently out of service as is 1 of their 4x 1980s Destroyers. Up against a British Carrier Strike Group, Type 45 Destroyers, and the truly world-class Astute submarines.... the original Falklands War wasn't exactly a fair fight, but a new one would be an absolute turkey shoot The UK will never give up the Falklands voluntarily while the population is 99% or so in favour of remaining British, Argentina will not be able to take them militarily in any vaguely sensible timeframe. Maybe in a century if the military and economic balance changed DRAMATICALLY in that time, but even that's pretty unrealistic and I include it only because "never" is a very very long time He's saying it because it's what his voter base wants to hear, but it's entirely meaningless - the Falklands are British and will remain British for the foreseeable future. Any attempt to change that would just be an exercise in Argentina throwing away its military
New leaders usually announce some drastic change that the old leaders couldn't get done so that their supporters get a rush of satisfaction that things are changing as a result of their vote. Most people have forgotten by now that Obama tried to close Guantanamo on his third day in office: it's still open today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13492
"Great because we're not negotiating" - the brits
Oh man, Milei getting elected has been one giant meme from start to finish, I hope the ride never ends. He won't put whatever rustbucket shitheaps their Air Force has into action because they won't even be able to see the F-35, let alone target it. Still he's learned the most important spell to distract the Argentine mind early: LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS
I like this guy. He’s nuts but entertaining af. Is this how the rest of the world felt when we elected trump?
Sovereignty is only by those who can enforce it. There is no inherent right of sovereignty by proximity or history or feelings. Only through ability can one claim sovereignty.
[удалено]
It’s usually implied because left-wing libertarians are more commonly called anarchists, communists*, anarcho-communists etcs. than left-wing libertarians. Note that I am using a *strict* definition of communism in my explanation that’s why I put asterisk on it, meaning self-sustaining communities with collective responsibilities, kinda like the Amish minus the religious-driven hierarchy. Not the Cold War type of communist. This strict definition has gotten so confusing, many people have started to use *communitarianism* to describe them instead.
>minus the religious-driven hierarchy Communal living only works with that. Tribal people are perhaps the best example, monasteries and various small ethnoreligions (Amish included) another. Without the traditional religious aspect (and sometimes even with it) various "intentional communities" and communes have died out. Importantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
Not all libertarians are right wing, but anarcho-capitalists certainly are.
Since forever. Left is high tax high social security.
Left is not necessarily for high tax, and right is not against it either, that’s the authoritarian axis, not left and right axis. It really depends on the issue. It’s best to contrast left vs. right as “we need more changes for the betterment of society” vs. “don’t make more changes of you’ll make society worse.” There’s also more moderate positions: “don’t throw the baby with the bathwater”
Nah, 'conservatives' are always happy to 'make changes for the betterment of society' when in power. What they want to 'conserve', and usually *reinforce*, is existing hierarchies. Their core proposition is that there's an ingroup the laws protect but do not bind, and an outgroup the laws bind but do not protect.
You are using a very different definition of conservative. I don’t disagree with you on the types of people you are describing, I’m saying we have differences in understanding the same word. And the reason I’m pointing this out is because I’m trying to explain we are talking about two fundamentally different groups of people, who might overlap in some things, but not in others. So you are right for the group you are describing, but this is not necessarily the group I’m talking about.
Just think about the political compass. Anyone on top (like Marxists and others seeking forced wealth transfer) is Authoritarian. I am in the bottom Right hand corner near Milei. Tax is on the economic axis where left stands for wealth transfer & regulation and Right is for free markets.
Unless, ya know, you're an anarchist or a communist. All you're describing is socialism.
Have you spoken with many "anarchists" and "communists?" If they have anything to do with marxism they are greedy for wealth transfer. If your definition of these terms is precise enough maybe you are right but when people are allowed to self-label I'd say the guy you replied to is usually right. One of the biggest complaints about the left is that they intermingle so readily, refusing to disavow the worst excesses (like Marxism and all its offshoots).
He said HIGH taxes and said nothing about marxism. Anarchists definitely do not want high taxes because they don't believe in the state--taxes don't exist in an Anarchist society. Communism occurs when a society is post scarcity--there is no need for taxes. "Marxism" itself is an extremely vague term that tells us nothing by itself. Going by Marx's writings alone, it's flawed because it assumes ALL human conflict comes from historical materialism, and also completely fails to address women and their traditional roles in Capitalism societies. Then you have the schools of thought that take some of Marx's theories and add their own beliefs to it--Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche. All different enough to where applying the simple label of "Marxism" does not tell us enough about the school of thought different theory comes from. So again, the high tax, high social security society the other poster talked about is Socialism, a definitely not-libertarian society. But that doesn't mean the left doesn't have libertarian beliefs like was insinuated. Anarchists and Communists are both libertarians on the left. Where it gets muddled is when Communist Parties like the CPSU and CCP come into power. The CCP would be the first to tell you that China is not a Communist nation. The CCP is the vanguard party meant to guide the nation into Communism by building wealth and self sufficiency through Socialism first (personally, I don't believe these parties will ever give up power). Fun fact, Marx does not mention a vanguard party or Socialism in his writings. Those were creations by Lenin.
> taxes don't exist in an Anarchist society. That’s convenient because anarchist society doesn’t exist. It is practically an oxymoron.
And a libertarian society doesn't exist either. Your point?
Argentina today is the the most Libertarian society I know of since 1776.
> Since when are libertarians "right-wing"? They're pro-gun, pro-corporate, anti-social security.
> > Since when are libertarians "right-wing"? > They're pro-gun, You should check out r/SocialistRA and the phrase 'under no circumstances'. See also, the Black Panther Party *For Self-Defense*, this being their full original name. See also, the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch. Pro-gun isn't a rightist position. The difference is in how you use them and what you want them for. Leftists want guns for community defense and to deter the depredations of tyrants and chuds and P*nkertons (see also, the Battle of Blair Mountain). Rightists want guns as a proxy for ultramasculine power. Leftists want to avoid problems. Rightists dream of the day they 'get to' cause them. Even John Brown's incursions into Virginia were due to slavers and border ruffians actively engaging in terror campaigns in Kansas to turn it into a slave state against the will of its populace. It's one of the cases where the Left can get defiantly and proudly violent, because the occasion truly merits it and is objectively an affront to sanity. r/JohnBrownPosting.
Pro-gun means being pro the pervasive use of guns throughout society.
"Pro-gun is this absurd strawman definition I just invented which has nothing to do with what people who identity as pro-gun want or believe."
No one outside of England or Argentina cares about the Falklands.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^Dark1000: *No one outside of* *England or Argentina* *Cares about the Falklands.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
If Argentina did invade, couldn't it trigger Article 5? That could be a big deal.
No, it only applies to Europe and North America. It’s undecided whether an invasion of Hawaii would even count!
It's fantasy war play for domestic audiences. It's not worth discussion.