US to Oppose UK over Falklands if PM Does Not Increase Defence Budget
Pentagon officials are weighing the Falklands issue as leverage to push Britain toward higher defense spending and NATO burden-sharing, according to The Telegraph.

Pentagon officials are considering reviewing Washington's stance on the Falklands to pressure the United Kingdom toward higher defense spending; a senior US official said the UK would receive "special attention" as Washington assesses credible plans.
Nato countries committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defense plus 1.5% on security infrastructure by 2035. Pentagon reviews inform decisions on US troop numbers in Europe, with Secretary Pete Hegseth expected to receive options in November.
Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's top policy official, warned in Brussels that allies must move faster replacing capabilities. "We hope to see more from countries like the United Kingdom," Colby told reporters, urging major efforts to lead their own defense.
Chancellor John Healey's October 28 Budget is not expected to commit the UK to spending 3% of GDP on defense by 2030, despite US pressure. Officials argued current plans do not go far enough.
Washington maintains a neutral position on Falklands sovereignty, yet officials refuse to rule out altering their approach to encourage burden-sharing. A senior official stated, "nothing is being ruled out" regarding options for encouraging the sort of burden-sharing sought.

https://ground.news/article/us...efence-budget_114515

funny video

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ic_NgTsfHkc

This message has been edited. Last edited by: downtownv,

That is interesting. Under Article 6 of NATO Treaty, only areas under control of NATO countries which are north of the Tropic of Cancer would require a response by NATO.

As the Falklands are well south of this, NATO wouldn’t be involved so that means Britain is on its own there, as they were in 1982, but US and France did provide intelligence and logistical support then.

This would also mean that an attack on Hawaii and Guam would not involve NATO, but only the US.

Interesting, I never really considered the NA part of NATO, as silly as that may seem. I wonder if Argentina could be convinced to make a play for the Malvinas again?

The UK holding on to the Malvinas but giving up Diego Garcia is, so moronic I could spit.

Well, given the current leadership in the UK, it's likely the Iron Lady herself would have opposed fighting for the Falklands under these circumstances. I mean, it's a joke to think they could defend them, right? Sheesh.

The UK should be our number one enemy in the world.

We don’t have to oppose anything. The Islamic Republic of Britain is on its own with this one.

No info or media interest on the subject down here. It’s a “local” debate as far as we are (not) concerned.

If you’d like some ironical and historical tidbit on the subject of the dispute, it could be said that US involvement started it all.
This is just my recollection, from 40 years ago, dedicated research. Hardly an argie will know this much.
When Argentina was being put together as a nation, there was an “official presence” on the islands. Said authorities enforced a fishing decree and captured an american ship. The ship was sent to Buenos Aires if i remember correctly. Some diplomatic unpleasantness followed with the US and an american navy vessel went to the islands and removed the mainland rep. As Argentina was undergoing a very confusing political period, the incident had no significant relevance at the time, bigger problems came first.

Don’t recall how the brits got there next but they used the american’s precedent of not recognizing argentina’s (whatever the name of the government was at the time) authority and declared the islands theirs.
Another commonly abused misconception is that the UN mandates both countries resolve the dispute under the decolonisation mandates. The ruling, dating from the mid 60s only asks that both contries discuss the subject. Under no obligation to show results. Brits cunningly convinced the argies NOT to put the talks yearly meetings reports in written so everything goes back to the square one when the talks resume following year.
This is just my outdated recollection.

0-0

quote:

Nato countries committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defense plus 1.5% on security infrastructure by 2035. Pentagon reviews inform decisions on US troop numbers in Europe, with Secretary Pete Hegseth expected to receive options in November.

How about proposing a flat fee for NATO membership?
We are all equal, right?

I recall that France was first to colonize Falklands, then GB a year later not really recognizing France's small settlement. Then Spain bought the settlement from France.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Pentagon officials are weighing the Falklands issue as leverage to push Britain toward higher defense spending and NATO burden-sharing, according to The Telegraph.

That would be perfectly fine with the current Labor government.
Like they did with Diego Garcia, getting rid of any claims to the Falklands and casting it loose would be one less vestige of the UK's history to which they so abhor. In the minds of the Labor, Falkland Islands are a leftover anachronism to the UK's colonial past to which they will gleefully use it to shame, taunt and tease any person who has any British pride.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
That would be perfectly fine with the current Labor government.
Like they did with Diego Garcia, getting rid of any claims to the Falklands and casting it loose would be one less vestige of the UK's history to which they so abhor.

Diego Garcia was occupied by the UK (and the US) only after expelling the closest thing to "native inhabitants." I want to say that there are no non-MOD (or US DoD) affiliated residents. Pull out, and it's just another PCS for those guys.

The Falklands are occupied by actual British citizens who view themselves as culturally and politically British. They've repeatedly turned down the prospect of self-governance or, worse, transfer of sovereignty. Not sure how the current government would sell that.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
...This would also mean that an attack on Hawaii and Guam would not involve NATO, but only the US.

It is not as if NATO would be that effective.

NATO:

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
I recall that France was first to colonize Falklands, then GB a year later not really recognizing France's small settlement. Then Spain bought the settlement from France.

AFAIK, there was never a french presence on the islands. French navigators were well aware of the general location of the islands that they named “Malouines” as the the first sailors to map their coordinates were from Saint Malo, France.
As the Pope had divided future lands to be discovered East or West of an imaginary line between Spain and Portugal (hence the portuguese colonies along the western african coastline), Columbus had no other choice than to go further past that line if he wanted to find new territories for Spain.
Have no clue how France position aas at the time of the discovery of America but i know they had no place claiming land for the french king that far south. Reason why Portugal got to colonize Brazil, BTW.

At one point in my life i was well versed in the subject and had a copy of the map of the Malouines, published well before any brit claim of discovery, that i got from a museum in France. Took me years to get it but you can find it online these days.

There was no buying or selling of territories that i’ve heard.

0-0