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

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

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.

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.

That's the crux for Burnham's Labor govt, while they'd love to cast-off the Falklands in their view of 'righting past wrongs', there's British citizens on those islands.

quote:

Originally posted by 0-0:
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.

It wasn't so much that the British seized the opportunity in the 1830s to declare the island theirs out of the blue, rather they were reasserting an existing British claim that had been in place for 70ish years already.

Here's a quick and dirty history of claims to and possession of the Falkland Islands:


A British explorer discovered the uninhabited islands in 1690. The French built a settlement in the eastern Falklands in 1764, and the British built a settlement in the western Falklands in 1765. Both nations claimed the Falklands at that time. [Britain and France have competing claims, and both have possession of parts.]

The French surrendered their claim and their settlement to Spain in 1767. The Spanish then briefly captured the British settlement in 1770 before restoring it to Britain in 1771. [Britain and Spain have competing claims and both have possession of parts, except for that brief period of Spanish sole possession.]

The British settlement was abandoned in 1774, but Britain formally retained their claim to the islands. [Britain and Spain have competing claims, but the Spanish have possession.]

The Spanish settlement on the island was abandoned in 1811, but Spain also formally retained their claim to the islands. [Britain and Spain still have competing claims, but neither has possession.]

Argentina (then known as the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) declared independence from Spain in 1816, and asserted claim to all of Spain's territory in the South Atlantic, including the Falklands. Attempts were made in 1824 and 1826 to establish small settlements, but both failed. [Britain and Argentina both have claims, but neither has possession.]

In 1828 a settlement was successfully founded on the islands at the same location as the previous French/Spanish one, though this was actually a strange sort of quasi-Argentine/British colony, with settlers from both nations (and others) and with permission from both claimant nations. Argentina eventually appointed the German-born leader of these settlers as governor of the island and military representative of the Argentine government, but he also informally reported to the British government and apparently personally preferred the islands to fall under British authority. [Britain and Argentina have claims, but Argentina has possession, as the settlement was ostensibly under Argentine government control though effectively autonomous.]

The Falkland government's seizing of the American vessels over fishing disputes and retaliatory American raid by the USS Lexington you mentioned happened in late 1831, in which the settlement was partially destroyed and the government representatives were briefly arrested by the American captain for piracy before the charges were eventually dropped. The governor resigned and most of the settlers returned to the mainland in January 1832. A few settlers remained in squalid conditions, but there was no remaining governmental control. [Britain and Argentina have claims, but neither has actual possession.]

Argentina attempted to reestablish government control in October 1832, dispatching a small military expedition with an interim governor to the Falklands, but the soldiers mutinied within a month and killed the interim governor. [Britain and Argentina have claims, but still neither has possession.]

In December 1832-January 1833, an Argentine naval officer attempted again to reestablish government control of the Falklands settlement, but he arrived at the same time as a British naval squadron arrived to reassert Britain's claim to the islands, and the Argentine naval officer returned to the mainland. The British reestablished a formal British military outpost on the islands. [Britain and Argentina have claims, but Britain has possession.]

Finally, in 1840 a British "Crown Colony" was formally established under direct British rule, which continues through today, though later the terminology was changed to a "British Dependent Territory" starting in 1983 and now currently a "British Overseas Territory" as of 2002. Britain has retained possession throughout, except for a 2 month period in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands before being removed by the British military in the Falklands War. [Britain and Argentina both have claims, but Britain retains possession.]

quote:

Originally posted by 0-0:

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.

As noted above, the French did have a settlement there for ~3 years from 1764-1767, before transferring the settlement over to Spain. It was originally Port Saint Louis, later becoming Puerto Soledad under the Spanish from 1767-1811.

This same location was later resettled as Puerto Luis under the Argentines from 1828-1831, and became Port Louis under the British from 1833-Today. Port Louis was the capital of the Falklands until 1845 when the capital was moved to Port Stanley.

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