MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Milei reaffirms Falklands sovereignty, warns oil firms and vows to rebuild the armed forces
Argentine President Javier Milei on Thursday reaffirmed his country's sovereignty claim over the Falklands Islands, warned of a diplomatic response to British oil exploration in the area, and announced that 10% of fiscal revenue from privatizations will be allocated to purchasing weapons and equipment for the armed forces. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMilei reaffirms Falklands sovereignty - based on what aspect of international law. prey tell?
Apr 03rd, 2026 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse +1What can one expect from a gangster who supports the murder of children and civilians perpetrated by the Godfather of the North?
Apr 03rd, 2026 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse -3Death and violence are absolutely natural and welcome things for this type of person. And I have no doubt that with his eventual popularity declining, he will act like the dictatorship in the early eighties.
I don't know the level of militarism Argentina has, but I heard they recently bought fighter jets and missiles from the West.
The only thing we don't need now is a new war in the southern part of our America. And I believe Brazil would be willing to prevent that from happening, including through the use of force. I believe even more that this is just another boast from Milei's regime to stroke the egos of its domestic audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVSOWwx7FhE
Stop talking stupid ignorant rubbish Brassknob. the islands resources belong to the islanders, the islands have never belonged to Argentina and never will unless the islanders choose to. as for your idiotic about war. which you are obsessed with. Argentina has about a dozen jets bought from Denmark, they are no match for the Eurofighter or the missile systems defending the islands Brazil can prevent nothing, its not their business and would never try to attack the British, Brazil and the UK are allies and have good relations. you are correct about Milei for once. its just meaningless words to placate the Malvinas fanatics nothing more, he knows himself that its BS. and Trump can also keep his orange nose out of it too and stay far away from the South Atlantic
Apr 03rd, 2026 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Esteban, In context, I agree, the guy is just being a politician and making noises for domestic consumption. I do not see any developing military threats in South America, thank God, especially now that Venezuela's menacing against Guyana has gone to sleep. As long as the Donald, as you so nicely put it, “keeps his orange nose out of it”, we should be good for a while, but he is the real worrisome actor. I suspect that after Persia, Cuba will be his next target and it may very well involve warfare.
Apr 03rd, 2026 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@FortHay. Pretty much agree with what you say. Argentina is broke, its military is decades behind the British, their will be no war in the South Atlantic, technology is advancing so quick that invading a well protected land is a disaster waiting to happen. hypersonic missiles which are under development in the UK would on their own take out anything and everything, Cuba is probably next on Trumps list. but Iran is a mess, and who knows what may happen in the Persian Gulf in the future, nobody should ever want to go to war,
Apr 03rd, 2026 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentine President Javier Milei on Thursday reaffirmed his country's sovereignty claim over the Falklands Islands”
Apr 04th, 2026 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK can rely on 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.”
Brasso is probably still in Russia. Hey Brasso,how's the “handler” handling you these days ? ;)
Apr 05th, 2026 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse +1Utrecht is irrelevant in this, as the Islands were never Spanish, vis a vis the Anglo Spanish agreement of 1771, they were not Spain’s to ‘sell, yield, pawn or transfer in the first place.
Apr 06th, 2026 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Q.E.D.
“Utrecht is irrelevant in this”
Apr 06th, 2026 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The the historically correct view is that both sides claims were upheld making it a 'tandem ownership'
According to Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper, in Getting it Right: the Real History of the Falklands/Malvinas“.
Unless you can provide evidence of your claim, it remains relevant to the origins of the UK claim.
Since you failed to provide ”that which was to be demonstrated.”
“An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
Nothing was ‘upheld’ and I don’t recall Pascoe and Pepper saying that in ‘getting it right’, please provide a link, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0A ‘reservation’ applying to both parties was included.
In fact, as I recall, Pascoe and Pepper argued that Britain maintained its right of occupation and that the 1771 restitution is evidence of Britain's sustained title, and Spain did not have a continuous, exclusive, or effective occupation of the islands until 1811.
Then when Spain left its settlement at Puerto Soledad in 1811, it abandoned the islands, leaving them as terra nullius (no-man's land), which made them available for British re-occupation.
Either way, Spain did not have title over the Islands to be able to give them away, hence Utrecht is irrelevant in this.
It’s not that complicated, unless you are trying to argue that Spain had undisputed sovereignty over the Islands.
“Nothing was ‘upheld’ and I don’t recall Pascoe and Pepper saying that in ‘getting it right’”
Apr 07th, 2026 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0”The Argentine 2007 pamphlets say (English p. 1, Spanish p. 4) that the agreement contained:... a Declaration by which Spain restored Port Egmont to the British in order to save the honour of the King of England, making express reservation of its [Spanish] sovereignty over the whole of the Malvinas Islands, and also of an Acceptance of this Declaration in which Great Britain remained silent as to the Spanish reservation of rights. A reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement. The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated:... that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands.
In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
So you're revealed as a liar yet again.
Remember, if you want to be a 'smart-ass' you have to be smart; otherwise your just an 'ass'.
Talk about a ‘non sequitur’ reply.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, a ‘reservation’ applying to both parties was included’, as I said.
And no mention of ‘upheld making it a “tandem ownership”’, as I said.
And no reply to the point that, as Pascoe and Pepper maintain, Spain did not have sole or undisputed title over the Islands, to be able to give them away, hence Utrecht is irrelevant in this.
Your argument cannot be sustained so you resort to ad hominem attacks, sad really.
I give up, sensible reasoning and intelligent discourse are clearly not within your capabilities.
A 'non sequitur' . Aren't you a proven liar, for the second time on this thread.
Apr 08th, 2026 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded
Reminder it is you who claimed. “Nothing was ‘upheld’ and I don’t recall Pascoe and Pepper saying that in ‘getting it right’”
And was answered in full. Thus:
“The question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Oh dear, rattle out of the pushchair and dummy goes flying.
Apr 08th, 2026 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, read it, it doesn’t say ‘upheld making it a 'tandem ownership', does it, no it doesn’t.
It says, ‘both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.”
Which is called a ‘general reservation’.
Which means, as Pascoe and Pepper maintain, Spain did not have sole or undisputed title over the Islands, to be able to give them away, hence Utrecht is irrelevant in this.
Q.E.D.
“it doesn’t say ‘upheld making it a 'tandem ownership'”
Apr 09th, 2026 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reminder it is you who claimed. “Nothing was ‘upheld’ and I don’t recall Pascoe and Pepper saying that in ‘getting it right’”
And was answered in full. Thus:
“The question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Ergo, no QED.
i.e A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded.
Again.
Apr 10th, 2026 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pascoe and Pepper did not say ‘upheld making it a 'tandem ownership’, I am correct.
They did say that Spain did not have sole or undisputed title over the Islands, again I am correct.
Ergo Spain could not give them away, hence Utrecht is irrelevant in this.
It not difficult, unless you argue Spain had sole title to the Islands, which you are not.
Spain did not own the Islands and therefore could not give them away, ergo Utrecht is irrelevant in this.
Simples.
Pugol-H said “Utrecht is irrelevant in this”
Apr 10th, 2026 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0A mere guess since you provide no evidence of such. So the following shows, how defintively wrong you are; but then you're always a constant loser.
The Peace of Utrecht was a series of treaties signed between 1713 and 1715 that ended the War of the Spanish Succession, establishing a balance of power in Europe. It indirectly influenced the sovereignty disputes over territories like the Falkland Islands, as it involved agreements between major powers, including Spain and Great Britain, which later impacted colonial claims.
Wikipedia History and Policy
Actually, you provided the evidence, Paso and Pepper’s argument that Spain did not have sole title to the Islands.
Apr 10th, 2026 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So could not give them away irrespective of the Peace of Utrecht.
Hoisted on your own petard there!
Err, no, Wikipedia, the peace of Utrecht, says:
The Peace of Utrecht was a series of peace treaties signed by the belligerents in the War of the Spanish Succession, in the Dutch city of Utrecht between April 1713 and February 1715. The war involved three contenders for the vacant throne of Spain, and had involved much of Europe for over a decade. Essentially, the treaties allowed Philip V (grandson of King Louis XIV of France) to keep the Spanish throne in return for permanently renouncing his claim to the French throne, along with other necessary guarantees that would ensure that France and Spain should not merge, thus preserving the balance of power in Europe.
No mention of ‘It indirectly influenced the sovereignty disputes over territories like the Falkland Islands’, anywhere.
You’re making it up again.
“Pascoe and Pepper did not say ‘upheld making it a 'tandem ownership”
Apr 10th, 2026 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never claimed they did, that is simply your connivance. The third time, you have been revealed, as a liar.
Yes you did.
Apr 10th, 2026 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘The the historically correct view is that both sides claims were upheld making it a 'tandem ownership'. According to Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper, in Getting it Right: the Real History of the Falklands/Malvinas“.’
https://en.mercopress.com/2026/04/02/milei-reaffirms-falklands-sovereignty-warns-oil-firms-and-vows-to-rebuild-the-armed-forces/comments#comment533768
“Err, no, Wikipedia, the peace of Utrecht, says:”
Apr 11th, 2026 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0It gives the further quote, as I stated, in Wikipedia History and Policy article; at the right-side under 'Search Assist'
“It indirectly influenced the sovereignty disputes over territories like the Falkland Islands”
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=The+Peace+of+Utrecht+was+a+series+of+treaties+signed+between+1713+and+1715+that+ended+the+War+of+the+Spanish+Succession%2C+establishing+a+balance+of+power+in+Europe.+It+indirectly+influenced+the+sovereignty+disputes+over+territories+like+the+Falkland+Islands%2C+as+it+involved+agreements+between+major+powers%2C+including+Spain+and+Great+Britain%2C+which+later+impacted+colonial+claims.&t=chromentp&ia=web
So it is as I correctly stated. While we are left with your rather limited, unsubstantiated guesses.
As to the “tandem” issue that was my misnomer; the correct term was a 'condominium'.
“Overview — Falklands dispute as a condominium proposal
A ”condominium“ is an arrangement where two or more sovereign states exercise joint sovereignty and administration over the same territory.” Anonymized by DuckDuckGo
Which is how P & P described it accurately. As they experts in that particular field, and you are not.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!