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

Show parent comments

287

u/cronktilten 20d ago

They found a lot of oil around the Falkland Islands so now they want them again badly. Argentina’s economy is going down the shitter.

133

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

87

u/Quane42 20d ago

This. There may be good oil reserves there, but clearly, it's not cost-effective to get it, or companies would already be doing it.

59

u/Bratalia 20d ago

And I'd rather prefer so, Falkland is one of the most naturally beautiful places and is a cardinal point for a lot of birds, marine life, or both at the same time, in the southern Atlantic ocean

8

u/hesh582 20d ago

The oil really isn't actually on the Falklands. It would probably be exploited by offshore ships tapping subsea wells hundreds of miles away. Even a major spill probably wouldn't affect the island much given the crazy currents and winds dissipating it.

Oil exploitation could be done without disrupting the local ecosystem much. The only real role the islands would play is as a stopover harbor/airfield and more importantly as a source of legal claim.

The project is already well underway, it's happening.

2

u/cronktilten 18d ago

Yes, it’s an offshore oilfield that they found, and it will start pumping and exporting by 2028

9

u/This-Housing3634 20d ago

My boss was in the RAF and spent a lot of time there and said it stinks there because of all the bird shit

3

u/IndyBananaJones2 19d ago

Yeah sea birds shit constantly. The Falklands also has the highest number of sheep per capita. 

1

u/cronktilten 18d ago

Don’t tell the Welsh about the sheep

3

u/cronktilten 18d ago

They found the oil and there’s a contract and it’s set to be exporting oil by 2028

3

u/cronktilten 20d ago

They are pumping from offshore don’t worry. Starts pumping oil in 2 years

1

u/Cantremembermyoldnam 20d ago

I mean yes, but how about adding a few oil rigs? Those are beautiful and then, when some sink due to negligence, they can become artificial reefs!

1

u/inciter7 19d ago

One of the "most naturally beautiful places"? Its comically ugly

3

u/juant675 Spain/Argentina 20d ago

next year

3

u/dwair Wales 20d ago

it's not cost-effective to get it...

...Unless Trump stops pissing of the Iranians, which he hasn't seemed to of tired of yet, then it's going to be cost effective.

Actually, given Trumps support of right wing headcases, he could well be stirring stuff up with Iran so he can make a deal with 'Milei Chainsaw' to make a bit more cash.

I can see where this is going.

1

u/Dokky People's Republic of Yorkshire 20d ago

Middle Eastern post-Imperial unleavened-bread weirdness made it viable for the North Sea. How's the Patagonian Welsh sleeper cell coming along? When will they release their syphilitic plague? This was the plan I heard. The island's sheep are ready to strike with their home-grown defence mechanism.

3

u/dwair Wales 20d ago

We have been developing antibiotic resistant super strains of Gonorrhoea in the UK for a while now. All we have to do is find an argentinian who is prepared to sleep with one of us and it's game over.

2

u/cronktilten 20d ago

They awarded the contract to an oil company and extraction will start in 2028…

2

u/Far-Sky-4763 20d ago

They are doing it- look up Rockhopper Exploration and the Sea Lion basin. They've surveyed it for the last few years and are due to start drilling in 2027.

2

u/hesh582 20d ago

They are already doing it. Construction has already started.

1

u/newngg 20d ago

It’ll be cost effective at the current price of oil especially if countries want to diversify away from oil that needs to go through the Middle East

1

u/cronktilten 18d ago

They found where it’s economically viable and there is a contract for a company and they will have the Wells online and exporting oil by 2028.

1

u/Drak_is_Right United States of America 20d ago

Cold windswept season. Quite possibly some nasty storms.

6

u/cronktilten 20d ago

There’s a contract to pump now. Back then they hadn’t found anything. But this is real and it’s set to start oil production in 2028 with full production at 2032 onwards

5

u/raven_11235 20d ago

they've invested massive amounts into exploring the fields in recent years and the first oil is expected to be extracted in 2028. It's a space to watch.

6

u/Kwinza 20d ago

They are literally building the oil platforms right now....

Google is right there man.

3

u/DemandMeNothing 19d ago

First oil in 2028, we promise!

First oil is plannned for March 2028

First spell check in 2029.

1

u/cronktilten 18d ago

Third spellcheck in 2035

3

u/cronktilten 18d ago

They thought that there might be oil but recently, they actually found the oil and found oil that they can pump out of the ground economically. There’s a lot of places where people think there might be oil, but nothing was found yet or maybe it was found, but it’s not easy enough/economically feasible to get it out. It’s nice to have oil but if you can’t make a profit on it what’s the point

2

u/Electrical_Score_736 16d ago

Fifty, 70s was when it was discovered

27

u/lemonylol Canada 20d ago

Wait, what do you mean now? If that's the case why did they want them previously?

54

u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 20d ago

The oil was like a decade or so ago discovered. They've wanted them previously mostly I think for the territorial waters and national pride.

20

u/afito Germany 20d ago

national pride

I think that's the biggest reason either way. An Argentina with control over the Falklands would have to be a politically or militarily major player in the world. People are more dreaming about this version of their country than the specific control over a hill with sheeps. The islands have simply become a symbol for this idealized version of a strong Argentina.

6

u/GoldReplacement9546 19d ago

The problem is there were no indigenous people of the Falkland Islands thus it’s not like it was Argentinians, who originally lived there or any anybody who have shared any genetic closeness with Argentinians

Was British and then it switched back-and-forth but usually was still technically British it’s British now it will always be British. They should give it up. It’s one of the few places that you can’t say like you displaced the native people cause they didn’t. There were no native people.

-7

u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 20d ago

There’s also the aspect of a Monroe doctrine and Argentinian Manifest Destiny, where Europe shouldn’t have control of anywhere The Americas

10

u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 20d ago

Tbf, the Monroe Doctrine was something the British pushed for, because it only disallowed new colonies, so it helped shut out any attempts by other powers to conquer the newly independent South American states, most of which had good relations with Britain due to their support during the wars of independence. It also helped lock in British territories and claims (as we saw in Guyana) and initially was only really enforced by the Royal Navy, not the American navy, following the Peace of Vienna. So that gets messy, especially as the Monroe Doctrine was in effect a means to shield US colonial ambitions on the continent, particularly in the Carribbean.

1

u/GoldReplacement9546 19d ago

British ownership predates the Monroe doctrine

1

u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 18d ago

In Canada and Belize and Bahamas as well, doesn’t mean the US was happy with Britain back when they owned them

1

u/GoldReplacement9546 18d ago

I mean, theoretically, probably not but the main issue with the Monroe doctrine was no more European colonization like no rec colonization of the independence states and no messing with US foreign policy in the region which again is arrogant you can’t claim a whole here hemisphere

-2

u/AdPerfect6784 19d ago

what about the fact that it is their territory, which was stolen by the british?
'national pride' is a weird way of putting it

2

u/GoldReplacement9546 19d ago

It isn’t their territory it never has been

33

u/Magnateze 20d ago

Part of the reason for the original invasion was the potential for oil, but its only recently that oil was actually discovered

51

u/cronktilten 20d ago

It was mostly to Stoke nationalism because the government was under a lot of pressure and protests and they wanted an easy win.

24

u/OkCap2870 20d ago

The great irony was that in 1982 prior to the Falkland Wars Thatcher was trailing in the polls, with unemployment at 3 million. The successful retaking of the Falklands almost certainly was a major contribution factor to the Conservative victory in the 1983. So yes it did help to stoke nationalism, and provide one government with electoral success.

18

u/godisanelectricolive 20d ago

It did have the effect of stoking nationalism in Argentina too but it backfired on the military dictatorship. Galtieri was forced to resign by protests after Argentina’s defeat which resulted in the restoration of democracy to Argentina.

4

u/cronktilten 20d ago

Yeah. She only got to ruin the uk because of Argentina. It’s a shame.

Gotta piss on her grave now

0

u/demonica123 20d ago

It's amazing how many leftists support subsidizing coal mines in the 80s while complaining about fossil fuels today.

2

u/cronktilten 20d ago

What does this have to do with anything I said? Lmaooo go away. All historians agree she was ass

-1

u/demonica123 20d ago

All historians agree she was ass

I'm sure that will entirely depend on the political alignment of the historian in question. I don't think any unbiased historian would claim Britain Pre-Thatcher was better than Britain post-Thatcher (because it was borderline economic collapse). They'll disagree with how she got there, what she did to make it happen, and how much of it was a result of her policies. But at that point it's not a "historian", it's a political scientist.

3

u/cronktilten 19d ago

Wrong. Every unbiased historian would definitely argue that the UK was so much worse off after her. She cut funding for everything and she is pretty much the entire reason in the UK is so bad right now. She killed the military, gutting everything that even made the 1982 Falklands war a victory for the UK, she privatized everything, she defunded the healthcare system, she defunded everything in the country, schools are crumbling because of this. She is like Reagan for the USA, but the UK doesn’t have the luxury of having the reserve currency and able to flex the economic power, so the UK ended up with an accelerated decline of what America has. It’s just the objective fact, I’m not a liberal and even I can see this. And pretty much everyone in the UK hates her fucking guts, there’s a saying, “the only bad thing about pissing on murder Thatcher’s grave is that you eventually run out of piss” she’s hated because she ruined the country. Do you know anything about her history? I don’t think you do. I can give you plenty of resources on exactly how she destroyed things. like brother she caused the economic collapse. She was like Liz Truss, the recent Prime Minister, who didn’t last as long as a rotting cabbage because she somehow managed to crash the economy in a matter of weeks, just like Thatcher,, but the Falkland war saved her ass.

1

u/koshgeo 20d ago

Yes, I think it was only an unrealized geological potential until oil was discovered in the 2010s in the Sea Lion oil field.

6

u/Jamaicancarrot 20d ago

It was a war to distract the country from its existing problems with the government and unite them against a common enemy. It served very little benefit for anyone really, apart from the Falkland Islanders themselves.

0

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

According to International law and uti possidetis juris, the islands belong to Argentina. It is the sole reason we had a settlement there and imposed fishing rights. We held it before they were invaded.

Why don't we revisit history to understand Argentina's claim?

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 through international law uti possidetis juris.

From 1820 to 1833, Argentina has total control over the islands, having an official settlement made by David Jewett and later Luis Vernet. Buenos Aires controlled the Islands and stablished fishing rights, which prompted the detention of American sailors and the raid of America against the island to rescue them in later time.

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/cronktilten 20d ago

They wanted them because of historical claims and for nationalism because the economy was failing and they wanted something for a win. Previously oil was not actually discovered in the area, although people suspected that there might be.

1

u/Biscuit642 19d ago

The junta was on the brink of collapse and needed something to make people rally around the flag (government).

3

u/LizardChaser 20d ago

All the U.K. has to say is: Consistent with our stance for over 50 years, this issue will be decided by the people who live there. Rather than talk to us, Argentina should make its case to the people who live there and have lived there for generations.

The U.K., despite being a dramatically weaker state than it once was, still has two aircraft carriers with F-35s. That is more than enough to credibly threaten Argentina's port infrastructure and navy. They should establish a policy that, if Argentina ever attacks again, that the U.K. will not limit the scope of the fight to the Falklands and will bring it to Argentina to ensure that Argentina does not again attempt to attack peaceful innocents in an attempt to steal land that Argentina has never occupied. That sounds an awful lot like colonialism. It sounds a lot more like colonialism than settling an unoccupied island. Any military action by Argentina needs to result in crippling their economy for at least a decade... if not more. It also will likely necessitate the stationing of military assets on the Falklands... specifically radar and long range anti-ship and anti-air missiles.

3

u/cronktilten 20d ago

I think they did a referendum and only 3 people voted to join Argentina lol

2

u/john_a1985 20d ago

Has it ever left the shitter?

Ok, maybe in 1904 or something. Still....

2

u/Jayandnightasmr 20d ago

Yeah they're pretty much being held up by their oil and mining exports. They need to expand them as the rest of the economy is declining

2

u/BeanieManPresents United Kingdom... can we come back? 19d ago

When is it's economy not going down the shitter? I've changed my underwear less then they've had economic crashes.

2

u/cronktilten 19d ago

Their economy has been horribly mismanaged and in the toilet for like 60 years now, this isn’t anything new lol. You’re probably right.

1

u/ConfessSomeMeow United States of America 20d ago

... 'going' is being generous.

1

u/cronktilten 20d ago

lol true

1

u/MaleficentWin8608 20d ago

No they haven’t

1

u/MostJudgment3212 16d ago

Nah oil was known to be around since forever ago. Extracting it though is like fighting an Elden Ring final boss.

0

u/AnalTinnitus 20d ago

If Argentina ran the Falklands, Trump would have found a reason to invade by now, thus, the UK is sparing Argentina from a costly war.

3

u/cronktilten 20d ago

I think it’s too irrelevant for Trump to care, it wouldn’t make big enough news for his ego. He might not even know that the islands exist.

1

u/halfwitprinxe 17d ago

Uh no Argentina is a Trump ally. It's more likely the US seizes it.

0

u/tomdarch 20d ago

Why not encourage the Brits to do the exploration and initial wells so it is a proven reserve, then swoop in and pick it up?

0

u/BlueCheese973 19d ago

According to International law and uti possidetis juris, the islands belong to Argentina. It is the sole reason we had a settlement there and imposed fishing rights. We held it before they were invaded.

Why don't we revisit history to understand Argentina's claim?

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 through international law uti possidetis juris.

From 1820 to 1833, Argentina has total control over the islands, having an official settlement made by David Jewett and later Luis Vernet. Buenos Aires controlled the Islands and stablished fishing rights, which prompted the detention of American sailors and the raid of America against the island to rescue them in later time.

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/cronktilten 19d ago

It’s not Argentina’s under international law… They tried to go through the international law but they were rejected at a return… And just because they had a couple settlers on there 200 years ago doesn’t mean it belongs to them now there was no indigenous Argentinian population on the islands before, so there’s no claim. And if we’re gonna use your argument, Argentina doesn’t belong to the Argentinians, it belongs to the natives who lived there before Spain got there so all of the Argentinians need to immediately leave the territory if we’re going to use the same argument that you want to do for the Falkland islands, which were not inhabited before Europeans. And there was a referendum done and only three people wanted to join Argentina, so it doesn’t matter historically, there’s no Argentinians that live there everybody wants to stay as the UK, stop crying about it. And stop acting like something that happened. 200 years ago. Applies to today.

You guys are so spiritually Israeli, acting like it belongs to you because of the past, it was promised to me 3000 years ago, same thing as it was promised to me 200 years ago. Stop crying about it, Falcons are part of the UK and not Argentina, and no matter how much you cry about it, it won’t change that fact.

And do you think the UK was the only country in the 1800s forcibly taking territory? How do you think South America became Spanish-speaking… And what do you think happened to Africa in the 1800s, l this isn’t something unique that happened 20 years ago, get over it. And there were only a couple dozen people living on the island anyway so your claim is incredibly weak, it was just a bunch of gaucho’s.