Translated from portuguese with Google Translator.

Source: http://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/argentin ... s-20998834


Argentina charges Brazil for flights to Islas Malvinas
Government of Macri claims of British airplanes that left of Brazilian airports

BRASÍLIA - The Argentinean chancellery charged Wednesday with explanations from the Brazilian government after detecting at least six UK military flights between Brazilian airports and the Malvinas Islands, a territory claimed by Argentina. The request for clarification was sent to Itamaraty, the AFP news agency reported.

The Argentine government recalled the "Brazilian commitment not to hide, in its airports and ports, British warplanes or ships that are going to the disputed archipelagos, in agreement with the position adopted by Mercosur and Unasur", as a form of solidarity with the Claim of Argentine sovereignty over the islands.

Wanted by GLOBO, the Foreign Ministry did not comment, but the Brazilian authorities would have already sent a preliminary explanation to the chancellery in Buenos Aires. "The Brazilian foreign ministry reaffirmed our country's support for the issue of the Malvinas and said it was not aware of these flights and committed to carry out the necessary investigations with the local Ministry of Defense," says the text attributed to the Argentine government.

Argentina and the United Kingdom disputed the territories of the islands during a war in 1982 that culminated in the surrender of the Argentine government and a total of 904 soldiers dead, 649 Argentineans and 255 Britons.

And what does Argentina expect from this posturing, other than coming across as antagonistic?

moo wrote:

And what does Argentina expect from this posturing, other than coming across as antagonistic?

Probably just a deflection tactic to try and hide some of Macri's dodgy dealing...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... a-45836195

A prosecutor in Argentina asked a judge on Wednesday to open an investigation into allegations President Mauricio Macri improperly granted routes to Colombia's Avianca airlines, which recently purchased a company from his family.

Prosecutor Jorge Di Lello asked a judge to allow the probe of Macri, his father Franco Macri, and presidential aide Fernando De Andreis. They are accused of crimes including defrauding the state and influence peddling.

I'm sure that the UK wanted explanations for Brazil allowing Libyan cargo planes landing in Brazil to refuel while bringing arms to Argentina, but that was a million years ago.

Sidebar, what would the Argentinians actually do with the Falklands that the British aren't doing now (if they actually were to acquire them through peaceful or forceful means)? To my understanding, there isn't much there...

TWA772LR wrote:

Sidebar, what would the Argentinians actually do with the Falklands that the British aren't doing now (if they actually were to acquire them through peaceful or forceful means)? To my understanding, there isn't much there...

They are needed for strategic sheep purposes...

https://youtu.be/6omQ5JjjLsE?t=436

angad84 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Sidebar, what would the Argentinians actually do with the Falklands that the British aren't doing now (if they actually were to acquire them through peaceful or forceful means)? To my understanding, there isn't much there...

They are needed for strategic sheep purposes...

https://youtu.be/6omQ5JjjLsE?t=436

What is the claim of Argentina on the Falklands? As I understand it Argentina never owned the Falklands. And I even think the UK were the first to have settlers there.

Dutchy wrote:

angad84 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Sidebar, what would the Argentinians actually do with the Falklands that the British aren't doing now (if they actually were to acquire them through peaceful or forceful means)? To my understanding, there isn't much there...

They are needed for strategic sheep purposes...

https://youtu.be/6omQ5JjjLsE?t=436

What is the claim of Argentina on the Falklands? As I understand it Argentina never owned the Falklands. And I even think the UK were the first to have settlers there.

Well I mean you can claim whatever you want, its just a matter of taking it

Dutchy wrote:

angad84 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Sidebar, what would the Argentinians actually do with the Falklands that the British aren't doing now (if they actually were to acquire them through peaceful or forceful means)? To my understanding, there isn't much there...

They are needed for strategic sheep purposes...

https://youtu.be/6omQ5JjjLsE?t=436

What is the claim of Argentina on the Falklands? As I understand it Argentina never owned the Falklands. And I even think the UK were the first to have settlers there.

I know a lot of the Falklands War was for Argentina to show it had clout in the world by trying to pick on a major world power. My high school history teacher actually claimed that Argentina could probably bought the islands from the British because of all the nothing that is there. I can see their mindset being, "These islands are so far away from London, and there's nothing there. Let's flex our muscles to show how serious we are." Well, when you attack a nuclear power that has trained for the past 35 years to annihilate another nuclear power, a swift and decisive defeat is guaranteed.

They have an interesting history. Settled by the French and British, then Spain kicked them out, then the British came back and held off Argentina (in the 1800s), Spain, and even Germany in WWI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... nd_Islands

The Brits are supposedly looking for oil around the islands too, today.

TWA772LR wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

angad84 wrote:

They are needed for strategic sheep purposes...

https://youtu.be/6omQ5JjjLsE?t=436

What is the claim of Argentina on the Falklands? As I understand it Argentina never owned the Falklands. And I even think the UK were the first to have settlers there.

I know a lot of the Falklands War was for Argentina to show it had clout in the world by trying to pick on a major world power. My high school history teacher actually claimed that Argentina could probably bought the islands from the British because of all the nothing that is there. I can see their mindset being, "These islands are so far away from London, and there's nothing there. Let's flex our muscles to show how serious we are." Well, when you attack a nuclear power that has trained for the past 35 years to annihilate another nuclear power, a swift and decisive defeat is guaranteed.

They have an interesting history. Settled by the French and British, then Spain kicked them out, then the British came back and held off Argentina (in the 1800s), Spain, and even Germany in WWI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... nd_Islands

The Brits are supposedly looking for oil around the islands too, today.

Oil is on its way out. 80% of the known reserve needs to stay in the ground if we want to realize the Paris agreement. The carbon-bubble.

Dutchy wrote:

What is the claim of Argentina on the Falklands? As I understand it Argentina never owned the Falklands. And I even think the UK were the first to have settlers there.

Actually, France was the first country with settlers there, with the British moving in the year after. Then France ceded the islands to Spain, who kicked out the British. Then the Spanish empire broke up, and Argentina inherited the Falklands. The Falklands were inhabited by a small colony of Argentines, but when Argentina started confiscating US fishing vessels, the USS Lexington retaliated by evicting all Argentine settlers on the Falklands and burning the settlement. The British then resettled the islands immediately islands after that and have been there ever since.

I've read quite a bit on the Falklands War and learned something new recently. One author (ex-military) claimed that the main reason that the Brits took the invasion so seriously was because of the Russians. Remember, at that time the Cold War was in full bloom. With the UK being the 3rd most powerful member of NATO, if they did nothing, it would give the Russians the idea that they had more options in Europe because the Brits weren't resolute.

VSMUT wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

What is the claim of Argentina on the Falklands? As I understand it Argentina never owned the Falklands. And I even think the UK were the first to have settlers there.

Actually, France was the first country with settlers there, with the British moving in the year after. Then France ceded the islands to Spain, who kicked out the British. Then the Spanish empire broke up, and Argentina inherited the Falklands. The Falklands were inhabited by a small colony of Argentines, but when Argentina started confiscating US fishing vessels, the USS Lexington retaliated by evicting all Argentine settlers on the Falklands and burning the settlement. The British then resettled the islands immediately islands after that and have been there ever since.

Thanks for the info!

johns624 wrote:

I've read quite a bit on the Falklands War and learned something new recently. One author (ex-military) claimed that the main reason that the Brits took the invasion so seriously was because of the Russians. Remember, at that time the Cold War was in full bloom. With the UK being the 3rd most powerful member of NATO, if they did nothing, it would give the Russians the idea that they had more options in Europe because the Brits weren't resolute.

Only partially true. It wasn't the Russians in particular, but just as much any nation interested in taking over some British colony, possession etc. It was just as much a signal to the US State Department who sided with Argentina in 1982, and who eagerly backed the Guatemalan plans to annex British Honduras in 1972, as well as sending a signal to the entire world that the UK was to be taken seriously.

BTW, a curious note that some books have noted is that Soviets may actually have helped the British during the Falklands. Pretty early on in the war before the British navy had even set sail, the Argies got a submarine scare when they detected one operating near the Falklands. A Soviet representative to the UN hinted at that being a Soviet action. The USSR didn't have a very fond relationship with Argentina either.

VSMUT wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I've read quite a bit on the Falklands War and learned something new recently. One author (ex-military) claimed that the main reason that the Brits took the invasion so seriously was because of the Russians. Remember, at that time the Cold War was in full bloom. With the UK being the 3rd most powerful member of NATO, if they did nothing, it would give the Russians the idea that they had more options in Europe because the Brits weren't resolute.

Only partially true. It wasn't the Russians in particular, but just as much any nation interested in taking over some British colony, possession etc. It was just as much a signal to the US State Department who sided with Argentina in 1982, and who eagerly backed the Guatemalan plans to annex British Honduras in 1972, as well as sending a signal to the entire world that the UK was to be taken seriously.

BTW, a curious note that some books have noted is that Soviets may actually have helped the British during the Falklands. Pretty early on in the war before the British navy had even set sail, the Argies got a submarine scare when they detected one operating near the Falklands. A Soviet representative to the UN hinted at that being a Soviet action. The USSR didn't have a very fond relationship with Argentina either.

Exactly. Paradoxically, the ones who should be the most grateful for this British attitude in The Falklands live almost at their antipode: the people of Hong Kong. We mustn't forget that 1982 was a time when it was clear that the UK would have to negotiate with China for the future of this at the time the most populous and most valuable remnant of the British Empire. Had the UK not shown resilience and steadfastness in The Falklands, surely China would have seen that as a sign of weakness, maybe even prompting it to launch its own operations to quickly recover Hong Kong from the UK.

I am sure the USSR would have been very interested in watching the first major war deployment of a RN fleet since Suez in 1956, probably hoping too that as then the US would pressure the UK to stop (which as a UK citizen I have to admit they were right about, PM Eden had gone off his rocker), thus sowing trouble, even toppling PM Thatcher which would have led to quite possibly Michael Foot of the Labour Party becoming PM.

Foot, though a more impressive figure than the current clown leading them, also shared Corbyn's views on the UK nuclear deterrent. Though unlike his latter day successor, Foot did support the deployment of the Task Force and had a revulsion for the Junta, a 'Tinpot Fascist Dictatorship' in his mind.
A Foot government would have scrapped the UK nukes, also instructed all US nuclear weapons on UK soil to go as well. Many in his party then also wanted us out of NATO too.
So I do not think the USSR wanted to help the UK, why also Cap Weinberger and the DoD DID want the US to take sides, which the Junta with their pig headed stupidity helped with by the contempt they treated both Reagan and Al Haig with.

Certainly TU-95's tracked the Task Force on the way down, until the Total Exclusion zone was reached.

olle wrote:

Right now Argentina waits for the UK-EU negotiations to see if UK will move to WTO rules. They wait happily for that negotiations...

Argentina aren't going to have a stronger claim over the Falklands because the UK left the EU, and any tariffs they put on UK exports to Argentina will be outweighed by tit-for-tat tariffs on Argentinian exports to the UK.

In 2015 the Argentinian import market was worth a whopping total of £289Million to the UK. Even going by 2011 figures, Argentina exports $150Million more to the UK than imports from the UK, so it wouldn't be in Argentina's best interest to rock that boat too much.

TWA772LR wrote:

I know a lot of the Falklands War was for Argentina to show it had clout in the world by trying to pick on a major world power.

...and they where not expecting a reaction from the UK, considering they just aborted starting a war with Chile after realizing that would be costly, if they could even manage to win.

best regards
Thomas