MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, September 23rd 2023 - 21:23 UTC
Russia has more claim to Crimea than Britain has to the Falkland Islands, a senior Russian lawmaker insisted Sunday as London again denounced Moscow's “illegal annexation” of the peninsula. Read full article
What a shame for this Russian. Simple facts. Going back to 'ancient times', we can identify occupancy by Cimmerians, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, the state of Kievan Rus', the Byzantine Empire, the Kipchaks, and the Golden Horde. In the 13th century CE, portions were controlled by the Republic of Venice and by the Republic of Genoa. Then there were the Mongol invasions, and Crimea was incorporated into the territory of the Golden Horde throughout the 14th century CE. The Crimean Khanate, a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, succeeded the Golden Horde and lasted from 1449 to 1779. In 1774, the Khanate was proclaimed independent under the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, and was then annexed by Russia in 1783. It appears that we can trace Russia's 'right' to Crimea back to 1783. On the other hand, the Falkland Islands were discovered by Britain in 1690. I'd say that puts Russia 93 years behind. As for argieland, as we are all aware, only managed 6 weeks of illegitimate occupancy. Still, why expect accuracy from two useless 'administrations' with features in common. Both are corrupt and criminal. In argieland, it's fairly common, widespread and 'normal'. The same is true in Russia with the largest criminal organisation being Bratva. Both are in deep trouble. Argieland's troubles may be seen to 'begin', in the recent past, in the early 80s. It made the mistake of waking Britain up, thinking Britain wouldn't, or couldn't, respond. There are often suggestions that 'the junta' wanted to establish a negotiating position over the Falklands. It forgot who was in power in Britain. Russia tried something similar. Fuelled by Putin's KGB nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Argieland got beaten down quite easily and is now reduced to whining. Putin is a bit more difficult to handle. But sanctions are biting. Thus military 'adventures' in northern Europe and Scandinavia. Both doomed to fail.
He would say that, wouldn't he.
2015 and the Falkland Islands are still British.
Mad Vlad and his cohorts -v-
Poor old Argentina with their sovereignty claim without a case. It can only mean that it is an illegitimate claim and w o r t h l e s s .
And no relevant UN resolutions because 2065 xx from 1965 is d e a d.
So, so sad.
Russia has more claim to Crimea than Britain has to the Falkland Islands
just an excuse to try and justify Russia's aggression.
A bit of bias with the actual distances involved. (not that it has any technical relevance)
It's more like 12 and a half thousand klicks from London, not fourteen.
310 miles from RG land?
So Russia at least recognises that the Falklands are legally British, they just believe that their legal right to Crimea is greater.
Nice to see some honesty here.
”[cfk] said ”Crimea once belonged to the Soviet Union and was then given by (former Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev to the Ukrainians”.
How can you 'give' a nation, to some-one else?
Were the people even consulted about who they would be 'given' to?
And she accepts that Russia can now take its 'gift' back?
How disgusting is this? That Cristina believes that whole territories and peoples can be swapped back and forth at the whim of power-crazed populist demagogues to suit their own political needs?
(oops! hang on! I think I just figured it out!)
l'd like to give Cristina to the North Koreans.
Bet nobody would want her back.
Looks like the blow job TMBOA gave Putin when he went to TDC paid off then!
Ha, ha, ha.
The Russians must be desperate to come up with this.
Russian first error Puskhov: Great Britain (okupas) has not any right over the Malvinas Argentinas Islands. Therefore it has not the slightest reason to be in the Malvinas Argentinas Islands. The only right to have, is the reason of force. English Putos.
Argentina can have the mythical Malvinas BUT the Falkland Islands are British, and they'll remain British until the people of the Falklands decide to change that status.
No matter how many corrupt dictatorships you get to spout a few lies, it won't make any difference to the fact that the British hold sovereignty of the Islands.
Just like we have since 1690. We held sovereignty yesterday, and today, and tomorrow and the day after and so on and so forth.
In 25 years time the Falklands will be either still British or completely independent.
One thing I'm certain is that they won't be Argentine. In fact at the rate your country is declining it's a good bet that Argentina won't even exist in 25 years time.
”Great Britain (okupas) has not any right over the Malvinas Argentinas Islands. Therefore it has not the slightest “reason” to be in the Malvinas Argentinas Islands. The only “right” to have, is the “reason” of force. English Putos.
Britain is nowhere near the mythical Malvinas. Britain's only prescence near Argentina is the Falklands and surrounding islands, which Britain has held legitimate sovereignty over since the 1700s.
The only force” used by Britain was to remove an attempt by Argentina to usurp the islands with a colonial prescence in 1833 - a usurpation that you lie about to this day, even to your children - which is quite disgusting.
This was compounded in 1982, when Argentina believed their own lies enough to illegaly invade the Falklands, attempt to subjugate the legitimate inhabitants (with plans to murder any who gave any protest), and refuse a *binding* order from the United Nations Security Council to remove their occupying force.
Again, Britain excercised their right of self-defense and liberated the Falklands from the Argentine okupas.
The current defense forces on the Falklands are there to defend the legitimate inhabitants from another attempt by Argentina to usurp the Falklands.
If Argentina had factual claims over the Falklands, they could easily solve their issue by taking the case to the ICJ. That they have not done so despite invitations from the UK to resolve the dispute with arbitration proves that your country has no legal, moral or historical claim to the Falklands.
Please stop lying.
The certainty of the invaders over its sovereignty over the Malvinas Argentinas Islands:
“It is not at all clear to me that we never ever held sovereignty over these islands”, Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister, 1829.
“The British occupation of 1833 was at the time an act of wanton aggression”, Memorandum of the British Foreign Office official, 1946.
“The only question was who had the best claim as we are attaching for the first time the islands. I think undoubtedly were the United Provinces of Buenos Aires”, Ronald Campbell, secretary of foreign affairs, 1911.
“Sitting down hard on the islands and avoid talking to the Argentines, because we could not sustain our arguments in court”, legal counsel for the Foreign Office, Gerald Fitzmaurice, 1936.
“Britain fully recognizes the sovereignty of the Argentine public authorities on the territories in which proclaim their jurisdiction...”, Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Trade between Argentina and Great Britain, 1825, (after the Argentina take possession, 1820).
“If you carefully read the memorandum of December 1910, surely must have realized that Argentina's attitude is not ridiculous or childish. I had assumed that our right to the Malvinas Islands was irrefutable. This is far from being the case”, Sir Malcolm Robertson, ambassador to Argentina, 1927.
“While the Committee believes that the historical evidence is finely balanced, we are forced to conclude that the weight of evidence argues for the position of Argentine bonds to the islands, at least the eastern islands, which was, while the British occupation in 1833, more substance than it was or is accepted by government officials in the UK. In this conclusion we are supported not only by the evidence we were given during the investigation but also by doubts on this matter were repeatedly expressed by British officials during the early part of the century”, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Commons, in 1982, immediately after the war ...
The certainty of the invaders over “its” sovereignty over the Malvinas Argentinas Islands:
We're not the invaders - you are, remember?
Regardless of your quotes, the historical facts are not disputable.
The fact is that we've held sovereignty over the Falklands before Argentina existed as a nation.
The fact is that Argentina attempted to usurp sovereignty from us and was removed.
The fact is that Argentina lied to their children for decades about this, referring to us as okupas and the legitimate inhabitants of the Islands as squatters, neither of which are provable.
The fact is that Argentina, in 1982, illegally invaded the Falklands and ignored a binding resolution requiring them to leave. That makes *you* the invaders, the okupas.
The fact is that Britain then exercised its legitimate right of self-defense and liberated the Falklands from their oppressors.
The fact is that Argentina claims that such an incident could not happen again, but wrongly refers to their invasion as liberation.
The fact is that Argentina could have the Falklands this year, if they took their case to the ICJ.
The fact is that Argentina will not go to the ICJ, because they have no proof that will stand up in that court.
The *undisputable* fact is that Argentina has no moral, historical or legal right to the Falkland Islands, or to decide the fate of the legitimate inhabitants.
Every time you do not acknowledge these facts, you *are* lying.
I'm asking you politely to please stop lying.
Bla, bla, bla, pelotudo. In case you did not notice, at No. 14 there is not a word Argentina. Everything is to agree to Argentina on sovereignty over the Malvinas Argentinas Islands, the part of the pirates (of shit).
I see you are keeping up your high quality posts !
What are YOU going to do about the Falklands apart from post more drivel.
Well, at least it keeps you occupied.
@16...OM lets look at your quotes...let's take the first one
“It is not at all clear to me that we never ever held sovereignty over these islands”, Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister, 1829.
You have, like ALL malvanistas conveniently left out on tiny word, which changes the emphasis of the quote, so it should be ...
“It is not at all clear to me that we never ever held sovereignty over ALL these islands”, Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister, 1829.
Miss quote and lie on the first one and you want us to take you seriously...jog on Jose
Jose just trots out the same miss-quotes every time.
He has no other response...
(until the Arg government writes him another one)
Get lost, José,
Malvinas NO son Argentinas.
Get over it, stop swearing & stop lying.
lf you REALLY believe these lslands are yours, then present your evidence to the ICJ or just STFU.
@16 José Malvinero
Ha Ha Ha, you pummel kopf ,you’re not playing fantasy history now, let’s face it there is far more chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back than there is of Argentina ever getting the Falklands.
If fact didn’t we fight a war over Crimea, must be ours then, add it to the list.
Then there is Patagonia, closer proximity to the British S. Atlantic than BA for centuries, OK we’ll have that as well.
Best you sell up to the Chinese quick, while you still have something to sell.
@16 Joseph mongo
I ejaculate from under my kilt my seed right in your ugly face.
And if mama wants to get to know a Scotsman? I'm here?
14 José Malvinero
Besides your deliberate misquote of the Duke of Wellington the UK can rely on the following Peace treaties which are recognised binding international law. The Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
Also, the Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.”
Take this evidence to the ICJ.
The UK /Falklands have a lot more evidence for past British occupation, and the present rights of the Islanders according to the UN charter.
And the best you have is this?
If you are certain that Argentina has a strong case for ownership of the Falklands, why aren't you breaking down the door of the ICJ to present your case?
You present your case as if British landings in the past, British settlement in the 1700s, and a total occupation of nearly 200 years has no relevance to the matter.
Open your eyes and stop sleepwalking.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!