We can blame Trump all we like for bullying us over the Falklands. But it’s our own fault that today we couldn’t repel an Argentine invasion: ANDREW ROBERTS
The article argues that Donald Trump’s suggestion that US policy on the Falkland Islands is under review could encourage Argentina’s territorial claims and weaken the UK–US “Special Relationship”. Its author contends that the greater problem is Britain’s reduced military capacity, which he says would leave the country unable to retake the islands after a full-scale Argentine invasion.
It notes that 255 British personnel and three islanders died in the 1982 war, while a 2013 referendum recorded 99.8 per cent support for remaining British on a 92 per cent turnout. The article says current defences include Sky Sabre air defence, four Typhoon jets, transport aircraft and up to 1,700 personnel, but argues these could deter an incursion rather than defeat an invasion; it contrasts current defence spending of 2.4 per cent of GDP with 5.3 per cent in 1982–83.
- Trump’s remarks could embolden Argentine claims to the Falklands.
- The author says UK forces could not now retake the islands.
- Defence spending is far below its 1982 level.
New here? Start with this
Trump recently floated a review of US policy on the Falkland Islands, a British territory in the South Atlantic that Argentina has long claimed as its own. This has revived a decades-old dispute rooted in the 1982 Falklands War, when Argentina invaded and Britain fought a short but costly conflict to retake the islands, resulting in 255 British and three islanders' deaths. Britain has held the islands since the 19th century, and their status is a longstanding sore point in Argentine politics.
The islands' roughly 3,000 residents have made clear where they stand: a 2013 referendum saw 99.8 per cent vote to remain a British Overseas Territory. The dispute matters because Britain's defence posture has changed markedly since 1982, when it spent a much larger share of national income on the military than it does now, raising questions about whether current forces stationed there could do more than deter a threat rather than repel a serious attack.
The debate also touches on the "Special Relationship" between Britain and the United States, a term describing their close diplomatic, military and intelligence ties. Any shift in Washington's stance on the Falklands would be read as a signal of how firmly the US continues to back Britain's position, making this as much a story about alliances as about territory.