Military Review

UK claims that Argentine statements on militarization of the Falkland Islands are absurd

23
UK claims that Argentine statements on militarization of the Falkland Islands are absurdUK envoy to the UN Mark Grant 11 February rejected accusations of militarization of the Falkland Islands, which were made by Argentina against the United Kingdom.


Earlier in the press reported that the Argentine Foreign Minister E. Timerman accused the British that they are deploying nuclear weapons in the area of ​​the Falkland Islands. The Minister said at a press conference in New York that Buenos Aires has information about sending London to the islands of the Vanguard class submarine.

Mark Grant emphasized that the British government "does not comment on issues relating to the deployment of its submarines, nuclear weapons, and the like" (ITAR-TASS information).

A British diplomat said: “The statements made by Mr. Timerman about the militarization of the islands by the UK are absurd. The military presence of the United Kingdom near the Falkland Islands was minimal for a long time. Only after Argentina illegally invaded the territory of these islands in 1982 did we have to take measures to ensure their defense. These measures have not been strengthened in recent months or years. The facts on which the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina has focused his attention - the deployment of warships, rocket tests carried out once every six months - have been taking place there for thirty years. The only thing that has changed during this time is the policy of Argentina. ”

M. Grant also recalled that, according to the provisions of the UN Charter and the Atlantic Charter, the residents of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination - and they have repeatedly expressed their desire to remain in the UK.

We remind you that the day before, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Argentina and the UK to avoid escalating the conflict around the Falkland Islands. According to Rosbalt, Ban Ki-moon expressed concern about the deterioration of relations between the two countries. The UN Secretary General hopes that Argentina and the UK will resolve differences through dialogue.

Previously, the media reported that the British Navy sent a nuclear submarine to the Falklands to protect the islands. It was indicated that either the Tireless submarine or the Turbulent submarine would be sent to the South Atlantic. Also 31 January 2012, the British Ministry of Defense made a statement about the direction to the islands of the newest destroyer "Dauntless". And since that time, the tension between Great Britain and Argentina began to increase.

2012 marks thirty years since the start of the war for control of the Falkland Islands between Great Britain and Argentina. From the beginning of the last century, Argentina considered its islands its own, but in 1833, the islands were captured by British troops. The leadership of Argentina still does not give up claims to the Falklands.
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kars
    Kars 12 February 2012 12: 34
    +2
    Quite an interesting situation. Considering that the fleet of Great Britain was rather reduced.
    Probably again in the Land lease to the Yankees fit.
  2. Nick
    Nick 12 February 2012 12: 37
    +2
    Anglo-Saxons will never refuse to seize territories if they are sure that they will not receive a strong cuff. Their whole story speaks of this.
    During its naval rule, England created the greatest colonial empire over which the sun never set.
    1. snek
      snek 12 February 2012 12: 47
      0
      Only here we are not talking about capture.
      1. Nick
        Nick 12 February 2012 13: 09
        +4
        Latin America is far from the British Isles, so it can be assumed that the Britons on the Falklands have lived for centuries ...
        1. snek
          snek 12 February 2012 13: 55
          0
          Before the British discovered the islands, they did not have a local population. Moreover, then there was no Argentina.
          1. ikrut
            ikrut 12 February 2012 15: 14
            +5
            The history of the Falklands is not so straightforward. At least not everyone attributes their discovery to the British. And it was not they (or even not only them) who first settled on them. Although, of course, from time immemorial, territories are divided by right of the strong. Therefore, the issue of supporting certain rights to the Falklands (Malvins) is a more political issue. than historical. Anglo-Saxons are the first enemies of Russia and the entire Slavic world. Therefore, we (I can not judge about you) are here to support precisely Argentina. IMHO.
            1. Marat
              Marat 12 February 2012 21: 15
              +3
              I will support your comment Ikrut! Definitely our sympathies and possible support are on the side of Argentina - the country that has embarked on the path of confrontation with the Pendostana and now the Naglosaks, the countries of the ally of eight ALBA countries (in fact an active member of ALBA)
              We know the policy of the ALBA countries, led by Cuba and Venezuela - support for Syria and Iran, support for all international initiatives of Russia, readiness to become Russia the same ally as Cuba was for the USSR in due time - (of course, when Russia "gets up from its knees" and finally reunites, although with a part of the former republics of the USSR - up to this point, an open confrontation with the "world masons" is premature)
              1. ikrut
                ikrut 12 February 2012 23: 16
                +5
                Thank you for understanding. I myself believe that in any disputes and discussions that take place here, one should immediately indicate the ultimate interest or purpose of those arguing on a particular topic. Then you can immediately see both your friends and strangers. I am sure that there is no sense in discussing with the enemy until he is defeated or asks for mercy. But to express their point of view. you need your thoughts and arguments. At least in order to transfer someone who doubts or is not determined to their side. We have no turning back. RUSSIA is behind us.
                1. vladimir64ss
                  vladimir64ss 12 February 2012 23: 31
                  +3
                  And here I support you Irkut. It is not by military measures that our view of the world needs to be maintained. Constantly.
          2. Nick
            Nick 12 February 2012 18: 34
            +3
            Quote: snek
            Before the British discovered the islands, they did not have a local population. Moreover, then there was no Argentina.

            So what? The Russians discovered Antarctica, but now nobody just walks on it ...
            Mother Siberia, Russians have been assimilated since Ivan the Terrible, and Madeleine Albright, being the US Secretary of State, expressed the view that Siberia should not be at the disposal of Russia alone, adding to this that she considers this state of affairs to be the highest injustice.
  3. Aleksey67
    Aleksey67 12 February 2012 12: 56
    +5
    I would like to recall that Venezuela actively supports Argentina. In England and in the mother country there are enough problems - Scotland, Ireland, so what kind of colonies are there. And of course, natural resources are the root cause of modern wars.
  4. Ascetic
    Ascetic 12 February 2012 14: 06
    +10
    Great Britain will not abandon the islands for several reasons.
    The first is oil deposits in the Falklands economic zone. The second is biological marine resources. Third - the strategic position of the archipelago. There already is a base of the British Navy, and if necessary, you can deploy more significant forces. This is the stronghold of the British influence in the South Atlantic, and they will hold on to it with their teeth. In fact, for exactly the same reasons, Argentina needs islands.
    As for the military scenario, it is currently unlikely. Of course, the modern British fleet is a squalor. In recent decades, his task has been to deter Soviet (then Russian) submarines on the Faroe-Icelandic border in the North Atlantic. Today, the British no longer build aircraft carriers. Their fleet is a maximum of 10 percent of the US fleet. And the sea-based nuclear potential is a maximum of 20 percent of the American, 30 percent of the Russian.
    Nevertheless, Argentina is even weaker in this regard. Her fleet is too weak to invade the Malvins (Falklands). If she makes such an attempt, it will become an adventure, or even simply suicide. And politically, she’s not ready for that. Argentina today has a stable regime, the economy is growing. Its leaders make and will make political statements, but they are not ready for war.
    If the issue of the status of the islands is raised in the UN, Russia should support Argentina. This is true historically - the archipelago used to belong to her. It is also beneficial politically. South America is our ally and Great Britain is one of our leading adversaries. "

    First Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Captain I Rank Konstantin Sivkov

    http://www.pravda.ru/world/restofworld/southamerica/20-01-2012/1105351-falkland-
    0/
    1. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 12 February 2012 18: 16
      -2
      Quote: Ascetic
      If the issue of the status of the islands is raised in the UN, Russia should support Argentina. This is true historically - the archipelago used to belong to her. It is also beneficial politically. South America is our ally and Great Britain is one of our leading adversaries. "

      Britain will then support Japan in the Kuril Islands, we can finally go there, we don’t have any dividends there, in any case, sell the air defense and air force fleet to Argentina and let them figure it out
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 13 February 2012 00: 30
        +2
        Britain and so supports Japan in the Kuril Islands. This once again shows that not an inch will be given away, but they advise us to share. After the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905, half of Sakhalin (the southern part of the island) and all the Kurile Islands passed to the Japanese, were it not for the 1945 of the year, with its different results, it is doubtful that Japan would be tormented by morality, and they would return territory. As Britain and the United States support Japan, we need to support Argentina, and, as a result of the Second World War, we don’t give up, let them forget their dreams.
  5. suharev - 52
    suharev - 52 12 February 2012 14: 17
    +3
    Ascetic. Thanks for the expanded comment. I agree with you that if this issue is raised at the UN, we must support Argentina. Firstly: we have not bad, both economic and military relations. Secondly: Argentina opposes the Anglo-Saxons with their colonial policies. And therefore: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
  6. 755962
    755962 12 February 2012 15: 59
    -1
    Argentina's Foreign Minister Hector Timerman said his government had received information that a British Navy Vanguard-class submarine was sent to the Falkland Islands. Such submarines can be armed with Trident submarine ballistic missiles, which in turn are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. At the end of January, the latest British Navy destroyer Dontliss arrived in the Falkland Islands, and British Prime Minister David Cameron accused Argentina of colonialism
  7. MURANO
    MURANO 12 February 2012 16: 33
    +2
    As for Vanguard, it's some kind of nonsense. Why send it to the islands if the range of the Trident is up to 11000km? smile
  8. Uralm
    Uralm 12 February 2012 19: 14
    +2
    The Spaniards were the first to discover the Falklands; Argentina was a Spanish colony. After independence, logically, as the closest country, the islands should belong to Argentina.
  9. dr. Mengele
    dr. Mengele 12 February 2012 23: 00
    +1
    I am for Argentina. They were not afraid to send world democracy away when they demanded that they extradite the Nazis, they did not allow the Communoids to raise their heads in their country, and they were not afraid to trample against the British military machine that had been tested for centuries.
  10. old rocket man
    old rocket man 12 February 2012 23: 57
    +2
    Hello and my respect, Ascetic. I’m a fan of your deeply reasoned comments. I want to add that in light of the reorientation of US policy to increase influence in the Asia-Pacific region, the importance of the Maldives greatly increases this control over the shortest and safest, in the case of the Panama Canal closure, from The Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, after all, the path through the Indian is longer, and is controlled by India, Indonesia and Malaysia, which are not very friendly with the arrogant Saxons, we simply must be for Argentina
    1. ikrut
      ikrut 13 February 2012 00: 17
      +2
      I apologize for getting in. I made the same mistake myself, but managed to get better. Of course, the note in question refers to the MALVINIAN (Falkland) islands, and not the MALDIVIAN. Sorry for the clarification.
      1. old rocket man
        old rocket man 13 February 2012 00: 20
        +2
        ikrut,
        yes thanks for the amendment
        1. ikrut
          ikrut 13 February 2012 00: 30
          +2
          I am also a former rocketeer. Strategic Rocket Forces. Shake your hand.
  11. rumpeljschtizhen
    rumpeljschtizhen 13 February 2012 01: 49
    +2
    The Saxons are a proud nation ........ they will once again be able to pile on. Anyone who questions their significance (I don’t like them but respect the enemy) as long as this nation does not change their self-confidence and unwavering their rightness ....
    like us