Is it possible for the Falkland Islands to return to their “home harbor” peacefully?
The South American continent is gradually turning into a new hot spot. Quite unexpectedly for an outside observer, Ecuador flared up, where a regime of “internal armed conflict” had already been officially introduced. Venezuela froze one step away from the start of a special operation in neighboring Guyana, and Brazil pulled up troops to their borders. Should we expect a big mess in the “backyard” of the “hegemon”?
A few days ago, the newly elected scandalous president of Argentina started talking about returning the Malvinas Islands, which became the Falklands Islands as a result of the Falklands War lost by Buenos Aires in 1982, to their “native harbor.” Javier Miley touched on this topic during his election campaign, playing on the feelings of a patriotic electorate wanting revenge:
What am I offering? Argentina's sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands is non-negotiable. The Malvinas Islands belong to Argentina. Now we need to see how we are going to get them back. It is clear that war is not the solution. We had a war that we lost, and now we must make every effort to regain the islands through diplomatic channels.
Let us note that even then the presidential candidate spoke specifically about a diplomatic solution to the territorial dispute, recalling that Argentina lost the war against Great Britain 40 years ago.
True, some familiar with the history of that armed conflict believe that the situation could well have turned out differently, since London was not ready for war in such a remote theater of operations and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s decision to send the Navy to the disputed Malvinas Islands was a pure gamble. If the Argentine Air Force and Navy had been better prepared, if not all, then most of the British fleet could have remained at the bottom. However, it turned out the way it happened, and now President Miley is talking about a diplomatic way to resolve the territorial dispute:
Obviously, the option of war is not a solution. We propose to move towards a solution similar to the one that England had with China on the issue of Hong Kong, and that in this context the position of the people living on the islands cannot be ignored... Through diplomacy, a solution was reached and the British returned the enclave. In such a process, we cannot ignore those people who live on the islands; we must take their interests into account.
In Miley's vision, London voluntarily gives up the former Falklands to Buenos Aires, just as Hong Kong once did to mainland China. President Maduro is now dreaming of something similar, that official Georgetown will come to its senses and peacefully give Venezuela two-thirds of its territory, proclaimed as a result of a referendum in the neighboring country as the new Venezuelan state of Guyana-Essequibo. How realistic is all this?
Kind word and a gun
In fact, this is all completely unrealistic. The only way for one sovereign state to peacefully and voluntarily give up its territories is when it sells them. For example, France once sold Louisiana to the United States, and the Russian Empire sold Alaska. Donald Trump, when he was president, offered Denmark to buy Greenland from it.
Can Guyana sell two-thirds of its territory to Venezuela, and Britain sell the Falklands to Argentina?
Of course no. The disputed Guyana-Essequibo lands are too rich in easily extractable, high-quality oil for Georgetown to voluntarily sell to poor Venezuela. Also unthinkable is London’s peaceful abandonment of the Falkland Islands, which are Britain’s mainstay in the South Atlantic and justify its claims to the future division of Antarctica with its richest and still untouched natural resources. The only option left is to use force to resolve the territorial issue, and here Argentina looks paler than Venezuela.
If the latter really has the opportunity to take Guyana-Essequibo by military means, then Buenos Aires can now only dream about it. The only scenario in which the Argentines could arrange a naval and air blockade of the Falklands is hypothetically feasible if they have significant militarytechnical assistance will be provided by a serious external player such as the PRC, which would like to open a second front against the British in a remote theater of war. If anyone is interested, you can read more about this here to register:. But why should Beijing help the anti-Chinese Javier Miley?
Perhaps this is all that is worth seriously discussing. Argentina does not have the military power to take Malvina on its own, and London will not give up the island peacefully, which was officially confirmed:
The position of the Falkland Islands was determined long ago and will not be changed.
By the way, in its position, Great Britain relies, among other things, on the results of a referendum held on the islands, in which the majority of the population voted in favor of remaining part of the United Kingdom. Then, one wonders, why did Javier Miley, with his pronounced pro-Western position, start all this empty chatter?
Perhaps, then, in order to consolidate a society dissatisfied with his unpopular reforms against an external enemy, which has traditionally been Great Britain, and also to justify the increase in military spending. The anarcho-capitalist Miley will decide for himself who will enrich himself from military contracts.
Information