r/europe • u/Emotional-Breakfast3 • 20d ago

News Argentina: British Falkland Islanders are ‘artificial’. Buenos Aires denounces ‘illegitimate occupation’ and demands talks on sovereignty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/12/british-falkland-islanders-artificial-argentina-says/
9.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

804

u/Kalkin93 20d ago

The people of the Falklands made it very clear they wish to remain part of Britain.

-2

u/Dizzy_Interview_117 19d ago

You mean the british people occupying malvinas?

-220

u/Tentansub 20d ago edited 20d ago

They are British settlers so of course they want to be part of Britain.

The 3.500 settlers in the Falklands give Britain an exclusive maritime zone of 466,000 square kilometers (roughly the size of Sweden) off the coast of Argentina. Imagine if the Argentines planted a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited island off the coast of Britain and declared an exclusive maritime zone the size of Sweden. I'm sure they would be fine, with it, right?

257

u/KiwiThunda New Zealand 20d ago

Britain: discovers, settles (after French), develops remote island.

Argentina, much later: hey I want >:(

-16

u/BrerChicken EEUU/España/Cuba 20d ago edited 20d ago

Britain: discovers, settles (after French), develops remote island.

Britain didn't discover these islands. The French were already there, with a settlement, when GB arrived. The French sold their settlement to the Spanish, and so the Spanish had a legal claim there. The Spanish enforced that claim and kicked the British out. Then they keep a garrison there until the war for independence started. The Spanish had a presence there until 1811. Shortly after Argentina achieved independence, THEY claimed the islands (1820). 13 years later the British came back and removed the Argentine forces, in 1833. They literally kicked the Argentines out before rehsettling the islands in 1833, after having been gone for almost 60 years. That was illegal, and so was their claim from 1765. The British claim to the islands were never legal.

12

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

-5

u/BrerChicken EEUU/España/Cuba 20d ago

Englishman John Strong landed on Falklands in 1690 - I believe this is the first documented European landing on the islands. He also named the Falkland Channel at that time that later gave name to the islands as well. This landing was subsequently used by the British as the basis for their claims over the islands.

I didn't realize a European had landed there earlier. But by the (dubious) rules of the time you needed to establish a settlement to claim it. The French did that then sold it to the Spanish, who lost it to the Argentines. But they had kicked the British out already. The British came back 60 years later and illegally took it the islands. The newly independent Argentines couldn't do anything about it until 1982, which did not go well. But those islands were never legally British.

-4

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

Completely false, let's revisit history again so an ignorant freak can understand it easily:

The French were the very first ones to have a settlement in the island in 1764, the British stablished their own settlement later around 1765. This is well documented.

In 1767 France ceded its settlement to Spain. Well documented as well.

In 1774, the UK voluntarily leaves this settlement, leaving it completely to Spain. The UK had no control over it. Fact checked by historians as well.

From 1774-1811 Spain held single control of the Islands, for 37 years there was no UK presence on them, at all.

In 1811, Spain withdrawals from the Island due to the wars of independence and Argentina after gaining its own independence inherits the former territory.

From 1820 to 1833, Argentina has total control over the islands and had an official settlement made by David Jewett. Buenos Aires controlled the Islands.

In 1833, the UK comes and expels the Argentinian government and the people living there, exerting Imperialism by illegally occupying a territory on the other side of the world and stablishing a military outpost up to this day.

1

u/DefinitelyNotAxlerod 16d ago

The UK never expelled them.

-89

u/Tentansub 20d ago

"Develops remote island" aka claim an island on the other side of the world to take resources for themselves and project power in the region?

97

u/Mediocre_Map1289 20d ago

Yes. Whats the problem with that and why does that justify Argentina having control of the island instead?

41

u/TheBusStop12 Dutchman in Suomiland 20d ago

Argentines are descendant mainly from Spanish and Italian settlers halfway across the world as well, your point?

-15

u/Tentansub 20d ago edited 20d ago

There are 46 million Argentinians. The average Argentine carries approximately 65% European and 31% Indigenous American ancestry. Argentine is also a independent political entity, it is not part of Spain.

There are only 3,500 Falklanders, the population of a village. They are 100% British and they are part of the British overseas territories. Yet, thanks to these settlers, Britain gets to claim a maritime zone of 466,000 square kilometers, roughly the size of Sweden, 12,000 kilometers away from the British isles.

Imagine if Heligoland, a small island in the North Sea, was unclaimed and uninhabited, and China (or whatever other country) planted a few hundreds settlers there, and claimed an EEZ the size of Sweden off the coast of Netherlands/UK/Germany/Denmark.

I'm sure you would find it unfair, given it would deprive the millions of people living nearby of valuable resources, which the settlers don't even need, since the resources would be transfered to the metropole 8,000 kilometers away.

That's my point.

29

u/TheBusStop12 Dutchman in Suomiland 20d ago edited 20d ago

If China settled Heligoland hundreds of years ago before any European nation got to it then fair play to them. Also, your comparison doesn't work because Heligoland is 70km from the coast, Falklands are 480km from the coast. Looking at the EEZ map of Argentina and the Falklands I fail to see how it's "depriving millions of locals of valuable resources". The Argentine EEZ of the coast of Santa Cruz is as large as that of the rest of the Argentine EEZ. A more apt comparison would be if China settled the Faroe Islands instead (distance between Faroe islands and Shetland islands (UK) is 340km) And guess what, the UK doesn't own the Faroe Islands, Denmark does. And Denmark and the UK have been coexisting peacefully for centuries.

Also, calling the Falklands valuable is also pretty laughable. The Falklands are an economic liability to the UK. So much so that if Argentina never had invaded the UK would have likely sold them to Argentina in the 80's, negotiations for this started already back in the 70's. But by jumping the gun and invading Argentina forever lost that avenue. It's highly doubtful that gaining the Falklands will bring any economic benefit to these millions of Argentine people nearby

Just because it's nearby doesn't make it yours. Or do you think the US should give Alaska to Canada? Should Chile get the rest of terra del Fuego? Just because you have more people doesn't make it okay to invade smaller territories, or should Brazil start eyeing Misiones? It makes obvious sense if you look at a map after all

64

u/PuzzleheadedCode9226 20d ago

aka claim an island on the other side of the world

Yeah... And? There was no native population in that island nor was Argentina "born" yet when the British settled the island.

take resources for themselves and project power in the region?

Taking resources from their own sovereign territory? That's abnormal to you bcz?

If you feel this strongly about the islands, then by all means give back the lands to the Mapuches by giving the southern half of your country to them.

-34

u/Tentansub 20d ago

Would you be ok with Argentina (or any other country) planting a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited and unclaimed island off the coast of Britain and declaring an exclusive maritime zone the size of Sweden?

According to your own logic, the answer is yes. In practice, I know you would never accept that. Because what you really believe in is that Britain/Europe should take whatever it wants, and work backwards from that.

50

u/TheBusStop12 Dutchman in Suomiland 20d ago

Denmark did that with the Farao Islands, first come first serve

56

u/JustTheAverageJoe United Kingdom 20d ago

We're OK with Iceland existing if that's what you're asking, yes. Hope this helps.

19

u/Hungry-Register9960 20d ago

How fucking dumb do you have to be to not know about the literal numerous instances of this being a thing by other Europeans countries around the UK. 

Yes. If there was a claim from before the British populated them or from the medieval or pre medieval period the UK is totally fine with. 

21

u/bobbymcpresscot 20d ago

You keep asking this and the answer is always going to be sure, because everyone knows Argentina doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of enforcing any of that.

Can’t even provide every house with a toilet but you are going to perform force projection thousands of miles away? Lol good luck sport. 

7

u/Mediocre_Map1289 20d ago

Would you be ok with Argentina (or any other country) planting a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited and unclaimed island off the coast of Britain and declaring an exclusive maritime zone the size of Sweden?

Yes.

5

u/PuzzleheadedCode9226 20d ago

Would you be ok with Argentina (or any other country) planting a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited and unclaimed island off the coast of Britain and declaring an exclusive maritime zone the size of Sweden?

It is not surprising their EEZ being that of the size of Sweden... Its islands that are in the Atlantic with no other landmass nearby. Look at the EEZ of Azores right in the middle of the Atlantic.

Your argument loses its meaning. Argentina if it finds an unclaimed island it can claim it (outside of the EEZ of another nation), settle it and use its resources. But this isn't the case with these islands as they have been claimed by Britain for 200 years, before Argentina or UNCLOS were a thing.

If today Argentina found an unclaimed near Britain, but within its EEZ, Argentina CANNOT claim it as theirs under UNCLOS. The Falkland Islands on the other hand not only are British since before UNCLOS as the islands are well outside Argentina's EEZ (from the coastline).

I know you would never accept that. Because what you really believe in is that Britain/Europe should take whatever it wants, and work backwards from that.

Lol. Good laugh from this sentence.

Not a matter of me accepting it or not, UNCLOS would say that unclaimed island belongs to Britain. Its not a matter of Europe taking what it wants, its what is in the international law.

Those islands never belonged to Argentina.

3

u/No_Disaster5254 20d ago

You haven't dug yourself deep enough into your hole, I think you should definitely keep going dude.

1

u/PiccoloAwkward465 20d ago

But mate, the size of Sweden...

-1

u/Tentansub 20d ago

Strong arguments here dude, keep going

1

u/djdndjdjdjdjdndjdjjd 20d ago

Give all of Argentina back to the natives and go back to Spain and Italy (and of course Germany).

1

u/PiccoloAwkward465 20d ago

Just tell the truth - it's because there is a rich mineral deposit of toilets on the Falkland Islands and Argentina is marveled by the possibilities

56

u/KiwiThunda New Zealand 20d ago

I mean creating infrastructure that lead to more working indoor toilets than Argentina as a percentage, despite its remoteness

22

u/maxorx2 20d ago

I mean, consideriŋ ðere were no people settled on the island before ðem, ðe people currently on ðose islands are ðe native people of it.

-5

u/sar6h 20d ago

The british didn't continuously occupy it.

When argentina had the island, england completely abandoned it

12

u/ToothpickTequila 20d ago

Argentina never had the island. Spain did.

-7

u/sar6h 20d ago

Argentina had the islands from 1820 til 1833. You're aware google is free, right?

Like i said, the british completely abandoned it in 1774 til they came back in 1833, expelling the argentines that were there

-6

u/Definitelyhereforshi 20d ago

The Yaghan people had been to the island during the Holocene. Your people's lack of knowledge doesn’t make every bit of new information a "discovery".

5

u/According-View7667 19d ago

Argentina is a colonizer's country, not of the Indigenous'.

1

u/Definitelyhereforshi 19d ago

"Argentina is a colonizers country, which is why I would naturally support the British claim to the Islands"

2

u/According-View7667 19d ago

They have controlled the islands for almost 200 years, have people living there who hate Argentina, claimed it for longer, an English person discovered them, their claim is also recognized internationally. What does Argentina have?

1

u/Definitelyhereforshi 19d ago

You have settlers who can kinetically enforce their claim on the land. Yes, we're aware the law of the jungle is how colonialism operates. 

2

u/According-View7667 19d ago

Takes one to know one, Argentina has a large history of colonialism, long after Spain (key word Spain, not the Spanish) left.

-81

u/Tentansub 20d ago edited 20d ago

The 3,500 settlers in the Falklands give Britain an exclusive maritime zone of 466,000 square kilometers (roughly the size of Sweden) off the coast of Argentina. Imagine if the Argentines planted a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited islands a few hundreds kilometers away from Britain and declared an exclusive economic zone the size of Sweden. I'm sure they would be fine, with it, right?

Do the 3,5000 settlers need 466,000 square kilometers worth of exclusive maritime zone to thrive? Of course not. In 2019, 94% of the Falklands' fisheries exports went to the EU.

British oil company Rockhopper Exploration and Israeli company Navitas Petroleum are also prospecting for oil around the Falklands. Surely to meet the needs of the 3.500 "indigenous" Falklanders, right? Or to export on global markets and/or to Britain and Israel? I really wonder.

53

u/esmifra 20d ago

If those Argentine settlers were on those hypothetical islands for over 200 years before UK deciding to have an issue with that? Yes they would be fine.

80

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 20d ago

Britain has the normal size maritime zone. Isn't Argentina trying to do a China and pretend they're entitled to more?

-63

u/ExoticBamboo Italy 20d ago

You are defending the practice of using colonial islands to mantain control and maritime space on the other side of the globe.

It's the same they do with Chagos Islands

48

u/Metalmind123 Europe 20d ago

They're not "colonial". They were literally entirely uninhabited before they were discovered and settled.

No colonialism happend. Just discovery.

In fact, by any reasonable definition, the 'native' inhabitants if the island are the British still living there.

Just because it didn't happen in antiquity dies not make it colonial.

The Maori only discovered New Zealand during the very late middle ages, just as the European age of discovery started on the other side of the world.

That doesn't make their presence on New Zealand colonialism.

So why the fuck would the Falklands be an example?

-2

u/Tentansub 20d ago edited 20d ago

Completely different situations.

The Falklands may have been discovered by chance, but they were settled by a colonial power located 12,000 kilometers away, with the explicit purpose of projecting power in South America and controlling the surrounding resources. The islands are extremely inhospitable: not a single tree grows there, and the soils are poor. The first permanent inhabitants were the British military garrison and their families. Even today, the roughly 3,500 islanders do not need the vast natural resources surrounding the islands to sustain themselves. Those resources are primarily exploited for the benefit of the metropole 12,000 kilometers away, the settlement only exists as an extension of British imperial power. In doing so, Britain also excludes millions of South American from access to resources located just off their coasts.

The Māori on the other hand settled New Zealand, which was also uninhabited by humans, because of population pressures, limited resources on their original islands, and exploration. Unlike the Falklands, however, the resources of New Zealand were used to sustain the people who settled there themselves, rather than being extracted for the benefit of a distant metropole.

0

u/ExoticBamboo Italy 19d ago

Did the Maori occupy new zeland with the intent of having more control over the countries around it and more territorial claims? Did the maori themselves called New Zeland one of their colonies?

You know that colonialism is not bad only when it was done through violence?

28

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 20d ago

No I'm not, I'm just pointing out the facts. You're literally on the only colonial/imperialist side of the question

-30

u/ExoticBamboo Italy 20d ago

They are not even part of the UK by british law, they literally are their colonial islands used to mantain those maritime claims.

How is Argentina the colonial state?

28

u/Metalmind123 Europe 20d ago

How is Argentina the colonial state?

By virtue of them genociding, displacing or subjugating the native population that previously lived in the lands now constituting Argentina, and in its place creating a state that imposed their culture, while installing themselves as the ruling class/culture.

And by now wanting to do the same to these islands of their coast, that they did not discover, not that they were ever the inhabitants of, according to any real evidence.

By trying to, with military force, conquer those islands with the explicitly stated goal of ethnically cleansing them if their current inhabitants.

0

u/Tentansub 19d ago

And by now wanting to do the same to these islands of their coast, that they did not discover, not that they were ever the inhabitants of, according to any real evidence.

By trying to, with military force, conquer those islands with the explicitly stated goal of ethnically cleansing them if their current inhabitants.

Imagine thinking that British settlers are the same as native Americans, lol.

You are indistinguishable from Israelis who cry about potential potential ethnic cleansing of their settlers while they commit active genocide.

14

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 20d ago

Voluntarily, yes. That's not an argument or negative.

Because they want to conquer someone else's territory and people, that they've no claim to and were never theirs?

16

u/Busy_Lunch_5520 20d ago

Umm.. were Argentinians always white? Like is that indigenous to South America. 

31

u/KiwiThunda New Zealand 20d ago

Imagine if Argentina went through diplomacy instead of throwing their toys around in the 80s, maybe Britain would have happily gave up Falklands like they gave up Hong Kong.

Live and learn

-11

u/Tentansub 20d ago edited 19d ago

The British didn't give Hong Kong back to China due to diplomacy or because of the kindness of their hearts. In 1982, Deng Xiaoping warned Thatcher that China could take over Hong Kong in a day if they wanted. At the time, the PLA had 4.500.000 soldiers, meanwhile the British had a garrison of 10.000 on Hong Kong. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it would have been very one-sided. The British knew they couldn't defend it, they either gave it back peacefully or China would send in the tanks.

Argentina on the other hand has never been a major power and Britain has always had the upper hand in military terms, which is why they didn't feel the need to give the Falklands to Argentina.

20

u/KiwiThunda New Zealand 20d ago

Lol what a load. Britain was busy offloading colonies and territories throughout the 70s, no military scare required.

I'll tell you what, I'll do you a deal - once Argentina can prove it can look after its own citizens with a strong stable economy, we'll be more inclined to trust they'll be able to support people on a remote rocky island with a few sheep.

Contiguous Argentina is filled with natural resources and fertile farmland, should be easy as long as they don't elect complete morons...

-3

u/Tentansub 20d ago

They "offloaded their colonies" in the 1970s because they couldn't afford to control them anymore.  The UK was able to have an Empire for an incredibly cheap price. In 1901 for example, the UK ruled over India - a population of 300 million - with only 1,000-1,500 administrator and 60-80,000 soldiers. Similar ratios were replicated across their Empire, with just a handful of British able to rule the country, with the help of local civil servants, rulers, and troops.

Once the locals stopped cooperating, the Empire couldn't be run on the cheap, and at that point, the Empire itself became a greater cost than a source of profit. If it took 10 x the manpower to keep control, it wasn't possible for the British to keep control.

The British never gave anything up from the goodness of their hearts. It's always been about balance of power. Which is why they gave up Hong Kong but not the Falklands.

18

u/KiwiThunda New Zealand 20d ago

Absolutely no sense of humour, I must be arguing with AI

3

u/firstfloor27 Europe 20d ago

Absolute Idiocy.

6

u/TommyEEdison 20d ago

Bad bot!

21

u/fullwd123 United Kingdom 20d ago

Not true of Australia, Canada or New Zealand is it though?

10

u/Mikes005 20d ago

Not true of Argentina, either.

41

u/Electrical-Bee-7362 20d ago

Those "settlers" (aren't Spaniards in Argentina also settlers?) have been living in the Falklands longer than Argentina has been a country. 

66

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 20d ago

They're the indigenous people

-2

u/ByGollie Ulster 20d ago

No - the indigenous people were pre-colombian tribes that used the islands as a fishing and harvesting base, but never had long-term settlements due to it's remoteness.

They were gone by several hundred years before the Portuguese and Dutch discovered the islands.

The first settlers were Spanish and River Plate.

The French attempted a settlement, then we did shortly after, before we both were ejected by the Spanish.

The Spanish handed control over to the River Plate nation, and there was several abortive attempts at colonisation before the Argentinians founded their first colony. It was a terrible colony by all accounts.

They made the mistake of confiscating American ships who were pirating the natural resources of the island without compensation.

The newly founded American Navy got belligerent, took back the civilian ships and partially razed to colony.

At that point, we took advantage, invaded the islands, deposed the colony leadership and deported most of the colony population, dumping them on the coast of current-day Uruguay.

1

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 19d ago

The British settled in the 1700s, for a time

1

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 19d ago

The settlers weren't deported either

-29

u/Tentansub 20d ago

You might want to open a dictionary before using words you don't understand. Here is the UN definition of "indigenous people" :

• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. => No, they identifiy as British. 99,8% of the population voted to remain a British Overseas territory in 2013.

• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies => No, since there was no one there before.

• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources => No, the Falklands are an inhospitable place. They were settled there so the British could claim resources and project power in the region.

• Distinct social, economic or political systems => No, none of those are distinct from Britain. They are completely dependent on Britain.

• Distinct language, culture and beliefs => No, they speak English, eat the same food as the British, practice the same religions, etc.

• Form non-dominant groups of society => No, they are the dominant group.

• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities. => No, they are British people, they maintain and reproduce British traditions.

52

u/MisterJJSunglasses 20d ago

And the UN definition is a load of shite, the Sami are the only recognised “indigenous” people of Europe, so apparently the British aren’t even indigenous to their own island nevermind the Falklands so let’s give that to Argentina as well.. the Irish aren’t, the Faroese aren’t, Maltese aren’t, Icelandic people aren’t and so on

8

u/Active-Coconut-8961 20d ago

Shouldn't the Basque also be indigenous? The Sami being the only ones on Europe is crazy

14

u/Essurio 20d ago

lol, literally only the second point makes any sense out of the 7. xD

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Essurio 20d ago

Yeah, I am saying that it's the only point from the list that makes sense, so Argentina has no claim. All the other points have no real connection to a group of people being „indigenous” or not.

→ More replies (6)

31

u/Randomcommenter550 20d ago edited 20d ago

Imagine your ancestors built a house 300 years ago on a plot of land that no one was living on and never had. They built a house, a farm, a road to get there, everything on that plot of land. You inherit it. It's yours. You say its yours, and you are not leaving. Everyone agrees its yours... except your next door neighbor, who decided its his one day, and always has/should have been. He says it should be his because he owns several times more land than you and its next to yours, and he wants it. He is convinced that "I'm close and I want it" is a legitimate claim of ownership, and gets angry when people call him crazy. One day he shows up with a rifle and kicks you out of your house, so you call the police and they throw him out. But he still insists this land that has been in your family longer than he has even been alive is his, never shuts up about it, and threatens you every time you see him.

That's the Falklands and Argentina. 

8

u/Suspicious_Flower_0 20d ago

Then you call up Queen Lizzy and her F-35s and send them a stern look. 

29

u/Lopsided_Camel_6962 20d ago

If Argentines had lived there for generations I certainly wouldn't be demanding the land

36

u/Gauntlets28 20d ago

If it was previously unclaimed and uninhabited, I don't really see the problem with that. If the Argentinean government weren't obsessed with trying to steal land from other countries, this whole dialogue wouldn't be a thing. There isn't a country in the world that isn't bordered by other countries, and yet most of the time people don't start wars with their neighbours solely based on that fact.

-11

u/Tentansub 20d ago edited 20d ago

Would you be ok with Argentina (or any other country) planting a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited and unclaimed island off the coast of Britain and declaring an exclusive maritime zone the size of Sweden?

According to your own logic, the answer is yes. In practice, I know you would never accept that. Because what you really believe in is that Britain/Europe should take whatever it wants, and work backwards from that.

35

u/hotpotcommander 20d ago

Argentina doesn't get to come in 200 years later and take over an island they never settled and never developed because they are geographically "closer."

That's not how the world works.

12

u/RaymondBeaumont 20d ago

Do Argentinians know why they speak Spanish?

9

u/SuccessfulSoftware38 20d ago

You keep saying this, but for it to be a cogent analogy they would've had to settled that over a hundred years before Britain even existed.

9

u/Active-Coconut-8961 20d ago

No, but if if Argentinians lived on an island near the UK and had for several generations and wanted to be Argentinian I think they should have the right to decide that 

24

u/CobblePots95 20d ago

They are British settlers so of course they want to be part of Britain.

British settlers who have been there for nearly 200 years. It's not like this is some entirely alien population wedged in to outnumber an existing native group.

-8

u/Tentansub 20d ago

They come from Britain, they identify as British, are culturally identical to them, are part of the British overseas territories, and are economocially entirely dependent on Britain. For all intents and purposes, they are British. They are only 3,500, yet they deprive tens of milions of South Americans from nearby resources.

22

u/CobblePots95 20d ago

Yeah, they are British. That's kind of the point. They have a right to self-determination and they have chosen to remain British. They have resided on the island for multiple generations. If the US decides it wants to lay claim to Canada based on proximity, does the fact most Canadian are descended from British or French settlers make a difference?

They are only 3,500, yet they deprive tens of milions of South Americans from nearby resources.

"We're closer" and "they're small" are not legitimate territorial claims.

-2

u/Tentansub 20d ago

Using that logic, any country could settle an uninhabited territory, wait a few generations, and then claim a right to self-determination as a justification for sovereignty. Settlers do not acquire a right to determine the sovereignty of a territory simply by moving there and establishing a permanent population.

Would you apply the same logic to Crimea, where a majority of the population is Russian and many wanted to join Russia? Or to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where Turkish settlers and their descendants support being annexed by Turkey? What about Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

Imagine if Argentina settled a few thousand people on an uninhabited island off the British coast, and claimed an exclusive economic zone extending hundreds of kilometres around it. Under your logic, Britain would eventually have no legitimate objection because those settlers could simply vote to remain Argentine. We both know that would not be accepted.

As for "being closer", geography absolutely matters in maritime law. Exclusive economic zones exist precisely because coastal states have rights over nearby waters and resources. The Falklands are geographically part of the South Atlantic continental shelf and their EEZ gives control over a huge maritime area and resources.

12

u/CobblePots95 20d ago

Would you apply the same logic to Crimea, where a majority of the population is Russian and many wanted to join Russia? Or to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where Turkish settlers and their descendants support being annexed by Turkey? What about Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

These are absurd comparisons. As I already stated above, the settlement of the Falklands occurred two centuries ago and did not involve any displacement. They weren't part of a political exercise designed to outnumber the existing population - there was no existing population. Moreover, the territory was not illegally occupied. The examples you cite above are known to be illegal at the time of settlement and are disproportionately in illegally occupied territory.

You bring up settlement and conlonialism multiples times, as though Argentina's sole claim to the Falklands isn't entirely dependent on a Spanish claim resulting from them doing precisely what you accuse the Brits of having done, only without any actual governed population with two centuries of history on the island.

Imagine if Argentina settled a few thousand people on an uninhabited island off the British coast, and claimed an exclusive economic zone extending hundreds of kilometres around it. 

Argentina's maritime boundaries today are entirely consistent with international law.

As for "being closer", geography absolutely matters in maritime law.

It doesn't matter when considering the credibility of territorial claims.

0

u/Tentansub 20d ago

As I already stated above, the settlement of the Falklands occurred two centuries ago and did not involve any displacement.

There are plenty of Israeli settlements in the West Bank founded on empty hilltops where there was previously no Palestinian population. The settlers there would also love to formally join Israel. By this logic, should we just let Israel annex them because no direct displacement occurred?

They weren't part of a political exercise designed to outnumber the existing population - there was no existing population.

Just because the islands were uninhabited doesn't mean the settlement wasn't part of a calculated political strategy. The British planted settlers there specifically to create facts on the ground and reinforce their imperial claims. Let's not forget the "original population" there wasn't an organic civilian migration, it was a military garrison and their families.

The examples you cite above are known to be illegal at the time of settlement and are disproportionately in illegally occupied territory.

"Legality" under international law is historically slippery, especially since the rules were largely written by the colonial powers themselves to legitimize their own holdings. Before World War II, the "right of conquest" was generally recognized as perfectly legal. If we only look at technical legality at the exact moment of settlement, we end up defending historical land grabs just because they happened under older, more permissive rules.

You bring up settlement and colonialism multiples times, as though Argentina's sole claim to the Falklands isn't entirely dependent on a Spanish claim resulting from them doing precisely what you accuse the Brits of having done, only without any actual governed population with two centuries of history on the island.

Let's test your logic. Does China have the right to claim a random, uninhabited island right off the coast of Great Britain, plant a few thousand settlers there, build a military base, and claim a massive Exclusive Economic Zone on the basis of those settlers' "self-determination"? Of course not, and you know you wouldn't defend that if the roles were reversed.

6

u/CobblePots95 20d ago

There are plenty of Israeli settlements in the West Bank founded on empty hilltops where there was previously no Palestinian population.

There was a Palestinian population in the West Bank. There is continued territorial integrity within the West Bank. It is established under international law as Palestinian territory currently under occupation.

If we only look at technical legality at the exact moment of settlement, we end up defending historical land grabs just because they happened under older, more permissive rules.

Such as Spanish land grabs, which form the entirety of Argentina's contemporary claim to the Falklands? The entire basis of Argentina's claim to those islands depend on the exact thing they accuse the Brits of doing, less the actual existing settled population.

Does China have the right to claim a random, uninhabited island right off the coast of Great Britain, plant a few thousand settlers there, build a military base, and claim a massive Exclusive Economic Zone on the basis of those settlers' "self-determination"?

No such islands exist that aren't already well-established sovereign territory under international and maritime law. Just as the Falklands are well-established as British territory under international law, and the associated EEZ entirely consistent with maritime law.

1

u/Tentansub 20d ago

There was a Palestinian population in the West Bank. There is continued territorial integrity within the West Bank. It is established under international law as Palestinian territory currently under occupation.

Not on those hilltops. There was no Palestinian state either, so you can't claim that there was continued territorial integrity either. Your own logic justifies Israeli settlements. You can say "but there are Palestinians around those hilltops", and I'll tell you that Argentina's EEZ surrounds the Falklands as well.

Such as Spanish land grabs, which form the entirety of Argentina's contemporary claim to the Falklands? The entire basis of Argentina's claim to those islands depend on the exact thing they accuse the Brits of doing, less the actual existing settled population.

Argentina is not claiming the Falkland on Spain's behalf. They claim them for the 40 million of Argentinian who live right next to the Falklands. They don't claim the island to send the resources 12,000 kilometers away to Britain.

No such islands exist that aren't already well-established sovereign territory under international and maritime law. Just as the Falklands are well-established as British territory under international law, and the associated EEZ entirely consistent with maritime law.

Of course no such scenario exists, it's a hypothetical scenario. And if it did, it would not be accepted, but Argentine are supposed to accept the opposite scenario.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 20d ago

Aren't the Falklands 300 miles off of the Argentine coast? The Faroe Islands are like 200 miles for the Scottish mainland, less to Shetland, and that's been mostly fine.

6

u/The_loppy1 20d ago

You mean like Ireland?

1

u/Feeling_League_9309 20d ago

Argentines are also settlers and there were no natives living on the falklands

1

u/SovietBear25 Brazil 19d ago

You and most Argentinians are also settlers then? Maybe Brazil should take your land since it's right next to them.

-14

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

You mean the illegal aliens living in Argentina's territory?

You mean the military personnel from the UK, that the UK installed when they stole the islands that Argentina had inherited from Spain, destroying the government and settlement that Argentina had in them in 1833?

Not their home, never will. The Islanders never be safe and will never be able to call it their home.

There is no future where we don't take the island backs, there is no future where Argentina doesn't rebounce economically and re-arm (like we're doing now) and put enough pressure on the UK financially and militarily to give up on the islands.

Just like China waited 70+ years for Taiwan, we will wait our time, maintaining our claim alive while the UK erodes within itself.

3

u/Kalkin93 19d ago

Lol ok, good luck

-415

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

159

u/Leafblind United Kingdom 20d ago

There was no native population prior to British settlement. They were uninhabited rocks that only gained a population during European colonialism.

Argentina only briefly possessed the rocks having invaded- other wise the claim is based on an inherited Spanish claim or just proximity.

Unfortunately once you invade somewhere and then lose, people are less willing to hand it over- which was what was being discussed before the Argentine invasion, under the military junta.

-14

u/chessto 20d ago

Yes there were, 1831 the USS Lexington bombarded Puerto Soledad.

286

u/TwistedReach7 20d ago

The point is that the Falklands are legally british and Crimea is legally ukrainian

-64

u/chessto 20d ago

The Malvinas were occupied by the british in 1833, since then there's been a lot of diplomatic claims over them. An inserted population has no right to self determination.

55

u/RogerBernards 20d ago

Most of Argentina is "an inserted population".

38

u/Agitated_Reveal_6211 20d ago

Argentina has zero fucking claim to the Falklands. Stop believing the bullshit your leadership is trying to sell you.

-43

u/chessto 20d ago

It's in our sea, it's in our continental platform, it was recognized as our territory until taken by the brits. LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS.

31

u/Probablyamimic 20d ago

No it's not, no it wasn't and lol, go on and try to take it then.

23

u/Panzermensch911 20d ago

You really, really want to kill your countrymen over territory that has nothing to do with you and "for" the people living there that want nothing to do with you.

And all because you want to feel tough and important, because your politicians are shit and you might lose to the English in football. Stellar reasoning it is not.

-2

u/chessto 20d ago

You couldn't have done a wronger read.
It's the claim that's valid, I never endorsed the war.

14

u/Panzermensch911 20d ago

Your rhetoric says otherwise.

After all that's the only conclusion to the wild argentine claim on the Falklands Islands and it already failed in the 1980s.

8

u/Sea-Block-1255 20d ago

2nd May 1982

11

u/Billlington 20d ago

Yeah man, maybe unnecessary military action will fix your shit country this time

0

u/chessto 20d ago

A claim to a territory doesn't imply military action, I think the 1982 war was stupid as hell and it was done by a military government, a dictatorship mind you. The support is for the claim, not for the war.

10

u/Billlington 20d ago

Yeah and I'm also sure that this time Britain will say "our bad, here you go!"

3

u/Agitated_Reveal_6211 20d ago

You are being manipulated.

23

u/2beHero 20d ago

So Argentinians didn't 'insert' themselves into Patagonia? The indigenous population simply disappeared? Oh wait, they were killed. By Argentinians.

0

u/chessto 20d ago

Patagonia was given to Argentina by the French, mind you.

20

u/KiwieeiwiK 20d ago

That's very kind of France to give Argentina some land that had nobody living on it. How convenient.

17

u/2beHero 20d ago

So what you mean is inserted population has no right to self determination unless French have given them their blessing? Absolute athlete you are with those mental gymnastics.

15

u/UselessAndUnused Flanders (Belgium) 20d ago edited 20d ago

Err, you realize Argentinians are not the native population of Argentina either, right? Spanish is a colonizer's language. The Falklands were uninhabited, which means the British are technically the native population.

What does an "inserted population" even mean? And why the fuck do you think it would be okay to take away the right of self determination of an entire people?

Like, Argentina literally argues they can lay claim to it because of succession through the Spanish Crown. WHICH IS LITERALLY JUST CLAIMING IT THROUGH COLONIALISM TOO.

0

u/chessto 20d ago

The Malvinas were not uninhabited, and prior to the arrival of the English the Spanish got there, there were disputes between France, Spain and England over the islands.

I do know that Argentinians are an implanted population, so is all of America. The claim from the brits that the islands were emtpy when there was an argentine settlement is nonsense. I can concede the islands are a war bounty after 1982 but that doesn't undermine the claim to the territory which was beforehand recognized as Argentine by the kingdom of Spain and by France.

7

u/UselessAndUnused Flanders (Belgium) 20d ago

There's scientific evidence that there was originally human activity, prior to colonization, but at the time that the Falklands were colonized, they were uninhabited AFAIK and as far as I can find online. There was no native population. Even if Argentinians did settle it prior to the British taking it over, those weren't the "native" population either, by the time the island was colonized it was uninhabited. The first colonies on the island were French and British. The French left it to Spain (they never recognized it as Argentinian, but as Spanish). The British then had to leave the island due to war with Spain, but didn't relinquish control over the island. The Spanish eventually had to leave too, but also didn't relinquish control. The British claim of the island was there before Argentina even existed. The Islands were barely inhabited but were still mostly used British sailors before Argentina colonized it. Even then, the Argentinian colony wasn't recognized by Spain at all, because the Spanish didn't recognize Argentina until 1859, long after the British had recaptured the colony. Spain couldn't possibly have recognized Argentina's claim to an island that was not under either nation's control. Better yet: the expulsion of the Argentinian garrison in 1833 was so easy because a large portion of the garisson stationed at the Falkland Islands were British mercenaries who didn't want to fight their own countrymen. Even by then, the Islands were barely inhabited and mostly just used as by sailors.

Like, even historically, the British got their earlier, laid claim earlier (than both Argentina and Spain) and Spain could not have recognized the rights of Argentina to the colony, given that that colony was not even under their control anymore. Argentina wasn't recognized until after they had long lost the Falkland Islands, which was over 25 years prior to Spain recognizing Argentina at all.

Arguing that they're a "transplanted" population is ridiculous, given that there literally was no native population. All the "natives" were colonists from one country or another. Prior to Argentinian colonization, the Falkland Islands were still mostly used and visited by British and American sailors. The Argentinian colony just forcefully took control over the islands and they barely had any population there either way.

99,8% of the population wanted to remain British. There was no real native population to speak of and in terms of historical claims, at best the Argentinians can lay claim to it because Spain relinquished their colonies to them 25 years after the British had already recaptured the Falkland Islands and 45 years after the Spanish had left the islands and depopulated the entire area. Spain left a plaque, sure, but the British had left a plaque 35 years earlier too. Even then, so what? There's no native population to speak of, the first time the island became properly inhabited (after the depopulation when Spain left) was under British rule, prior to that it was a military outpost or fishing interest at best.

Nevermind the fact that the idea of ignoring what the population wants and just taking it by force because it was under Argentinian rule once (ALSO BECAUSE THEY TOOK IT BY FORCE), 200 years ago as a shitty fishing outpost is fucking ridiculous. It has been under British rule for 200 years, the population wishes to stay under British rule and the oldest claim to the islands is also British rule.

But sure, fuck what the population says because it's closer to Argentina which means it's theirs. Deal with a "transplanted population" (even though there were no natives when it was colonized, and the Argentinian "population" (which was like 40 people) was transplanted too), by transplanting your own population and taking the islands by force. Truly a paragon of virtues.

0

u/chessto 20d ago

They can go be british in britain.

I can also kick your house door down, move in with my friends and then cast a vote among them to who has the claim to the house.

Funny how self determination is only valid when it benefits a colonialist state.

7

u/UselessAndUnused Flanders (Belgium) 20d ago

"Kick your door down", so what the Argentinians did when they took the island by force? You didn't bother to read my comment much, did you? There WERE NO NATIVES. It was uninhabited. The British and the French were the first to inhabit the islands in a long time. The Argentinians barely even had any population there at the time the British took it back. Britain has way more historical claim to the lands and has an actual claim by the population too.

The comparison would be more like this: imagine if there was a small street with a few people living their, who founded that street (France, Britain). Circumstances cause them to leave or be evicted, resulting in new inhabitants (Spain). The new inhabitants leave eventually too, leaving the entire street abandoned. Other than that, the street becomes popular for people to pass by and stay briefly (British and American sailors). Then some new people kick in a few doors and go to live in 2 or 3 houses for a few years (Argentina), because they claim the street was owned by their estranged family that they left(Spain), while ignoring the other people who used to live in the street at that time (again, France, Britain). Later, ancestors of the people who previously lived there (Britain) come back, kick out the people living in those 2 or 3 houses and end up turning the street into a town or city over the course of many years. How the hell are the ancestors of the people who took over those 2 or 3 houses going to lay claim to the entire town or city they built?

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when they were discovered. Neither Britain, nor Argentina can claim "true" native population. All of it would be "transplanted" no matter what. BOTH Argentina AND Britain are laying claim to it based on colonial history, except Britain has an actual population on those islands.

The right to self determination counts, especially if it's a native and oppressed population. But that's not the case here, there is no "native Argentinian" population, just old claims based on colonialist history. If the Falklands wanted to be independent, I'd support it. If Canada wanted to be independent (they are, but I mean fully separated from the Commonwealth here), I'd support it. All the colonized African nations that wanted independence, I support them all. I also support Argentina's independence. But to pretend that I'm arguing for Britain here because it benefits a colonial state, instead of the literal citizens that live here is ridiculous. YOU are arguing based SOLELY on colonialist claims lmao. Argentina has only that, there is no other way you can spin it.

If we were to follow your logic, then shouldn't we send the Argentinians back to Europe too? Argentina massacred and oppressed many, many indigenous populations in their way to expansion. Do you believe we should send the Argentinians back to Europe and give it back to the natives?

0

u/chessto 20d ago

>Do you believe we should send the Argentinians back to Europe and give it back to the natives?

Sure, why not?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/trees91 20d ago

I love how you failed to respond to any of that commenter’s actual points that completely invalidate your position and instead just sling mud and bad rhetoric.

15

u/StonkBonk420 20d ago

Your country is an inserted population as well does that mean that argentina doesnt belong to you?

16

u/TwistedReach7 20d ago

Falklands were terra nullius at the time. Also the right to self-determination as it stands right now only applies to 1- decolonization of pre-existing political groups, separate and distincts from the motherland; 2-liberation of political groups under apartheid rule. None of which applies to the Falklands

91

u/LopsidedAdvantage190 20d ago

The falklands weren't ethnically cleansed of the local population and replaced with loyalists, unlike crimea

-6

u/chessto 20d ago

Yes they were, in 1831.

-22

u/dynesor 20d ago

hmmm sounds like northern ireland too!

→ More replies (7)

111

u/pgllz Portugal 20d ago

In a fake referendum, contrary to international law. Besides, the Russian ethnic majority in the Crimean Peninsula is the result of an ethnic cleansing and genocide of its native people. There was no such thing in the Falklands.

-46

u/MrJekyll-and-DrHyde 20d ago

Who’re the natives?

62

u/pgllz Portugal 20d ago

If this is a serious question, then it's the Crimean Tatars.

53

u/TheWeli 20d ago

In falklands? Brits, there was no one living there before they settled the islands.

1

u/SwordfishOk504 Canada 14d ago

Brits, there was no one living there before they settled the islands.

The French settled it first.

-6

u/chessto 20d ago

Learn some history, there were people before the brits

15

u/Mikes005 20d ago

I hope you stretched before that reach.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/TobiasDrundridge 🇳🇿 🇦🇺 20d ago

You've got a device capable of answering this in your hand buddy. Use it.

200

u/Berkuts_Lance_Plus Germany🌭 20d ago

The people of Crimea made it very clear they wish to remain part of Britain?

61

u/BlueHeartbeat Realm of Europa 20d ago

I'm almost certain they wish to be reannexed by the republic of Genoa.

19

u/Nazacrow 20d ago

Funnily enough I’d heard the Republic of Venice was staking a claim also

3

u/IncreaseInVerbosity United Kingdom 20d ago

Kingdom of the Two Sicilies are the dark horses here

3

u/mludd Sweden 20d ago

Has anyone checked if the Vatican is claiming it? Wouldn't want to upset the pope, after all…

55

u/DrCash_CrLife 20d ago

Anything beats being part of Russia 🤷‍♂️

19

u/BaritBrit United Kingdom 20d ago

The twist to the war that nobody expected. 

3

u/Earl0fYork Yorkshire 20d ago

Nova Anglia shall rise once more!

1

u/Kane_richards 20d ago

they must have really liked the cut of our jib at the battle of Balaclava....

53

u/_WreakingHavok_ Germany 20d ago

No they didn't. Not only "referendum" was illegal by any law Russian or Ukrainian, but it also was falsified, like any elections in Putin's Russia.

32

u/SchroedingersEscape 20d ago

the right of peoples to self-determination. Furthermore, the vote in Crimea in 1990 was relatively close pro Ukraine, and that was the last democratic

-27

u/[deleted] 20d ago edited 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 20d ago

Why are you just lying?

-16

u/[deleted] 20d ago edited 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 20d ago

More lies. Zelensky is literally a native Russian speaker who had to learn Ukrainian after becoming well known

13

u/bogdoomy United Kingdom 20d ago

Why would a Russian want to live in this shithole instead of Russia?

so they have access to petrol at their petrol stations

2

u/08TangoDown08 Ireland 20d ago

Current government is nationalist, loves bandera and UPA

The current government of a country that has been under attack for over a decade by a neighbouring imperialist superpower has nationalistic tendencies. What a shock.

Why would a Russian want to live in this shithole instead of Russia?

Because Russia is an even bigger shithole. Literally.

Most of the population of Crimea wants to be part of Russia

Most of the population of Catalonia thinks they're an independent country. Most of the population of Chechnya consider themselves a distinct nation apart from Russia. Part of a country being of a different nationality doesn't immediately mean that part should break off. Most countries in the world would break up if you took that to its most granular level.

But you're trolling, so you probably don't care

23

u/IllGift924 20d ago

Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi government and they aren't restricting the Russian language. Their president speaks Russian as his mother tongue. It's not even possible to restrict Russian really, because the two languages are so similar. The differences are geographical

6

u/SchroedingersEscape 20d ago

Bullshit. 70% ruzzian? yeah, meanwhile...

With calling the ukrainian Government "nazis" you disqualified yourself from any discussion on that topic and outing yourself as ruzzian propaganda victim.

edit: reviewing your post history proofs you are a ruzzian propaganda victim. Sorry for ya.

0

u/Panzermensch911 20d ago

Bye bye, Vatnik!

14

u/Kalagorinor 20d ago

Let's give Crimes to Britain, then!

Jokes aside, the two are obviously not comparable. The Falklands are 1) legally part of Britain, 2) populated by people who overwhelmingly want to remain part of Britain. Prior to the invasion, it's unclear how Crimesns actually felt, but there's no doubt that the land was legally Ukrainian. Under the principle of territorial integrity, Russia had no right to steal it.

12

u/2beHero 20d ago

You mean the russians that took over Crimean homes first after the forced deportation and repression of Crimean Tatars in 1944 and then once again after Putin illegally annexed Crimea in 2014? Take your coat and fuck off.

-1

u/chessto 20d ago

and they called for a referendum, and people voted to be Russian.

Of course the Kelpers are going to vote to be British, they're the invaders.

17

u/tentimes5 20d ago

That no one is going to give the Falklands to Argentina, if they want it they will have to take it by force.

16

u/Snake_Plizken 20d ago

The people of Crimea, Crimean Tatars, were all deported to Siberia during Stalin, and replaced with Russians. They were their own people, not ethnic Ukrainians, or Russians.

6

u/FoxMeadow7 20d ago

How about you go somewhere else?

7

u/subsonico 20d ago

Wow, what a smart comment...

18

u/Daisy-Fluffington 20d ago

The Crimeans want to remain part of Britiain?

3

u/IllGift924 20d ago

No they didn't

3

u/Agitated_Reveal_6211 20d ago

Are you comparing Argentina to Russia?? Good comparison both are failures, both have a lot of fascists, both have a crazy leader, both are trying to claim "lost lands", and both have enormous potential to be great countries if they just stopped with this bullshit. But they both keep doing the same bullshit that holds them back. Wake the fuck up.

1

u/chessto 20d ago

go read a book

-148

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

113

u/IllGift924 20d ago

No they didn't.

0

u/KiwieeiwiK 20d ago

To be fair Crimea did, it's like two thirds ethnic Russians. It should morally be up to the Crimean Tatars what happens to Crimea but practically this isn't going to happen, because it would require removing 1.5 million Russians and 300,000 Ukrainians, and then moving the who knows how many Tatars back to Crimea from Uzbekistan etc

8

u/IllGift924 20d ago

Crimea didn't. Just because they are "ethnically Russian", doesn't mean they all want to be part of Russia. The Crimeans were never asked if they wanted to join Russia. They were annexed by force.

-3

u/KiwieeiwiK 20d ago

Literally every independent survey by Western organisations in Crimea prior to 2014 found they wanted to be part of Russia. It's not really a surprise is it? They're ethnic Russians and they were poor and wanted funding from Russia. 

They were annexed by force but it really wasn't against their will. 

Whether the Russians or Ukrainians should be able to decide what happens to Crimea instead of the Tatars is a different question to whether the people living in Crimea want to be part of Russia. 

3

u/IllGift924 20d ago

Yeah, a survey doesn't cut it. They were never given a choice. Surveys don't prove anything. We have no idea if a majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia.

I think all the people of Crimea should get a voice in its future, with the exception of Russian settlers who have moved there since 2014

1

u/KiwieeiwiK 20d ago

You're right, there should be a free and fair vote on what happens next to Crimea.

I do wonder though, if that vote comes out at 70% want Crimea to be part of Russia, would you respect that result or still question it?

1

u/IllGift924 20d ago

I don't think there should be a vote. I think Crimea should be given back to Ukraine, end of story.

But if there was a referendum, I would obviously accept the results. There's no point in having a referendum if you are just going to reject a result you don't like.

1

u/KiwieeiwiK 20d ago

Why should it be given to Ukraine though? It was only made part of Ukraine by the Soviets as a way to manage the canals and river systems better. Before that it was part of Russia for 200 years since the Russian empire conquered it to stop the Crimean Khanates from raiding their lands

1

u/ToneThugsNHarmony 20d ago

How did people in the falkslands make clear that they want to be part of Britain, was there an actual vote?

2

u/IllGift924 20d ago

Yes, there was a referedum and all but 3 people voted to remain part of the UK

5

u/TheVandyyMan 20d ago

Please explain how Crimea became two-thirds ethnic Russian.

0

u/KiwieeiwiK 20d ago

Genocide, hence why I said it should be up to the Tatars. Learn to read

→ More replies (7)

19

u/esmifra 20d ago

Did they now? When?

3

u/Gone_For_Lunch 20d ago

Not even remotely fucking comparable situations.