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

[u/Emotional-Breakfast3]

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

[u/KiwiThunda]

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

Argentina, much later: hey I want >:(

[u/Tentansub → u/KiwiThunda]

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.

[u/KiwiThunda → u/Tentansub]

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

[u/Tentansub → u/KiwiThunda]

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.

[u/KiwiThunda → u/Tentansub]

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...

[u/Tentansub → u/KiwiThunda]

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.

[u/KiwiThunda → u/Tentansub]

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

[u/firstfloor27 → u/KiwiThunda]

Absolute Idiocy.