China and Argentina re Falklands/Malvinas

kwaigonegin said:

Mi amigo, le diría con todos los respectos que no estoy de acuerdocon esta declaricion.

While I agree that had Argentina been a nuclear armed nation during the Falklands war, the Brits would've threaded much more carefully however the analogy about HK incorrect. China has been a nuclear armed nation for bout 40 yrs before the handover of HK so I doubt that played a role.

Ultimately it's the desire of the local populace that determines the eventual outcome.

Click to expand...

That what politicians say, but those are not what history tell us.

China fought a war, named the opium war, when England had the power, China was humiliated, when China had power England left, the nuclear factor made England left, and history proves when China was weak it was invaded, treated like a vassal state.

However Hong Kong was handed over in a civilized way, with protocols.

Argentina today is threaten with nuclear subs, Typhoons, and second the population of the Falklands are not native, since they were transplanted directly from England after 1833.

At this moment Argentina can not do too much, its military is under a US-Europe embargo lead by England.


Argentina approached China as part of a logic political arrangement, and in fact the Chinese have a space monitoring base in Argentina in neuquen, in fact, there are some critics, saying the Chinese military controls it.

The video is in Spanish but you can see it in it

Wow! Interesting thread, and to think I just stumbled across it. I hope it does not turn ugly. I was very encouraged however with the first half dozen posts which here right on the mark. No complaints here. So I’ll just through in my 2 cents

For all of you interested in tension and rivalry in Latin America, I suggest you read my articles located at:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/history-of-south-american-nation-inter-rivalry-and-arms-buildup.t6905/

The Argentine military is at a crossroads in terms of defining its identity and determining its raison d’être ("reason for existence”). Unfortunately for the armed forces, a lack of public interest in its status induces the military to look south, to raise the visibility and vigour of its claim to a section of Antarctica.

Yet unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, the Argentine military will continue to be viewed through the eyes of its actions during the 1976-1983 period of military rule and the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War, when it turned its guns against the nation’s civilians rather than an external enemy. It may take an external treat to awaken the nation, and the politicians, in Argentina to the fact that they can no longer continue to neglect their military. Most nations that neglect their national defence soon become a playground for land acquisition, discontinues being a sovereign nation, or become a puppet of its neighbours.

Aditionally Argentina, which recalls the role of the Pinochet junta (in Chile) in providing surveillance and logistics support to Britain during the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War. Currently Chile in negotiating a deal with the Netherlands to acquire an additional 18 more F-16s at a cost of $278 million. If the deal goes through this will bring the total to 12 Block 60 and 54 MLUs. That is 66 F-16s, by far the largest and most powerful Air Force in all Latin America. And for what purpose?

Argentina needs to get its house in order and once again get involved in the community of nations. The only way the Argentina has a shot at a joint administration of the islands is an economic one. It has to show that if the islands were jointly administered the residents would be better off financially and that would help Briton in not having to spend hundreds of million in defending the archipelago.

Briton and Argentina are two nations that should never have gone to war.


Back to bottling my Grenache

Possible future war
If there is the misfortune of another war in the South Atlantic, the scenario my go something like this:

Chile and Argentina, in addition to Britain, claim the entirety of the Antarctic Peninsula, the northernmost part of the continent.

Should Chile ally itself with the West and against Argentina, the latter would be isolated and could become a potential victim of a Falklands War-style defeat should it continue to press its claims. If a war were to break out between Argentina and Chile over the Antarctic, rest assured that Britain would (by vested interest in Antarctica) become involved. Since Peru (a long time allies of Argentina) would try to take revenge over its loss in the “War of the Pacific” they could possible commence military operations in northern Chile aided by Bolivia (another land looser in the War of the Pacific). At that point one could speculate that Ecuador may involve itself against Peru and with the defense treaty Venezuela may assist Argentina.

It could be a rather sticky wicket indeed.


Back to bottling my Grenache

SampanViking said:

....Despite all this, the only shift in military power as the relative decline of UK military power, while the Argentine forces have largely stagnated over the thirty years since the Falklands War......

....A quick digression – my personal belief (based on the evidence) is that the UK and Argentina need to do the pragmatic thing and agree a deal and divide the spoils of the region “fairly” between them. The failure to do so is bringing other parties to the table offering support, but support that comes at a heavy price.

The most obvious and least calamatous outcome is a divided region with the two protagonists retaining a very small part of the riches, having had to hand out the lions share to there respective Great Power backers......

Click to expand...

We are thinking along the same lines.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The British strategy for the Falklands since the end of the war has been based on denial and match to overmatch. The Falklands garrison has already allotted a potent if small task force that is more then a match against the existing Argentinian military whose navy is more a coast guard and whose Air force is more or less grounded. It would demand a massive infusion of man power, equipment and especially money for the Argentinians to be a realistic threat vs the existing Falklands defenses.
White Hall knows this. If they maintain the existing force readiness for the Falklands then they can maintain them under the sovereign, even with overall budget cuts the Falklands AOR can be more or less kept at the status quo.
And even with the UK's move to the Chinese government bank partnership the military to military and overall relationship between the US and UK still remains the Special Relationship.

The Argentinian government by contrast is to fractured to stabilize as a military threat. The Kitchener government is unstable at best, Argentina's economy is in a poor state and Kitchener and her base has a axe to grind against the military. This keeps her own hands tied. She cannot allow well under her the Argentinian military to rebuild as needed to take the Falklands.
This could however change as her term of presidential power nears its finality and new leadership moves in. Yet even then it would still demand massive amounts of resources and investment to actually begin rebuilding the Argentinian military to take the islands. Then still the UK would have time and the resources to match and maintain the status quo.

Argentina is just not in the position to force the issue. Militarily they never really recovered from the Falklands war and the end of the juntas made the military a pariah in the government and politics.
Financially they have miss managed and deflated into a decline.
Public opinion they may have to a degree but the Falklands are by population far more Anglo then Argentinian, if they invaded again. The perception is stacked against Argentina as the population would have to be Occupied by force and not "Liberated". By cultural by custom by heritage this is a group of English isle's in the wrong hemisphere vs a Latin American island under domination by a foreign power. In the first occupation the first thing that happened was that the Argentinian Marines stormed the radio station and played a prerecorded message announcing that everything was going to be fine and nothing would change... Then the announcer started saying all the things that had to change.

Overall if Argentina really and truly wants the Falklands. The best and surest way to get them is to turn there attentions inward and fix there economic and political issues. If they can make Argentina a beacon of success and opportunity and offer a amount of unique cultural liberties then they could woe the population to be willing to join them, and the UK would likely hand over sovereignty, after all they did more or less the same with Hong Kong.
The UK might have even handed them over in the 1980s if not for the Argentinian invasion.

Click to expand...

You took the words out of my mouth. Excellent analysis.

thunderchief said:

It doesn't have to be a war .

Let's assume Argentina acquires around 30 Flankers with latest upgrades from China (or Russia) . Sufficient range to do all kinds of nasty stuff on Falklands .

To counter that Britain would need to deploy more Typhoons and ground troops , to send warships more frequently etc .... in other words, increased logistical cost, more pressure on British government and less ability to act on other hotspots around the world .

Eventually, it could put Britain in position to be more friendly to Argentinian demands for negotiations about sovereignty of islands .

Click to expand...

This is the obvious and logical way forward. Increase the pressure until Whitehall has to commit more Navy and Airforce to defending the Falklands than it has defending large regions of the UK itself.

delft said:

Exactly. No island is nearer than the mainland and I don't think the ocean has sufficiently shallow reefs in a useful place.

Click to expand...

All the area around the Falkland and Argentine (plus a long way out beyond the Islands) is Continental Shelf and similar to the North Sea Floor. There is also a ridge that extends out to South Georgia and which bends back to some of the outer Antarctic Islands.

Just like the North Sea, there will be plenty of banks, reefs and Sea Mounts that will be good candidates for reclamation and turning into permanent and inhabited Islands.

What really scares me is the polarization of Latin America into two camps. The American side with democracy and freedom and the Chinese/Russian side with totalitarian regimes and closed economies.

For now, nations in Latin America are likely to continue their current spending on weapons. And the regional security picture is likely to become still more complicated. The United States of America should be very concerned with the inroads that China is making in Latin America (specifically Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina) . It is not in America’s best interest to have China become the new champion for Latin America against the “Colonial West”. This will cause America’s influence diminishes in Latin America and as regional leaders like Brazil emerge. Brazil will play a greater role, and democratic civilian control over the military faces new challenges, but at the same time will allow Brazil to become the United States in South America. Another concern is the influence that Russia is excreting in the region with nations like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and Bolivia.

For US policy makers (stuck in the twentieth century mind set with Latin America) are confronting a complex dynamic situation, for which they appear ti be poorly prepared. The United States is no longer able to act unaccountably as a dominant power, as it did during the “gunboat diplomacy” years. Neither can it treat Latin American nations like a “with us or against us” chessboard, as it did during the cold war.

The United States is still the most powerful nation in the Americas (and the world), a situation that is unlikely to change any time soon. However, America must adapt its approach and become more creative. America, while recognizing that it can no longer determine every outcome in Latin America, must orient its policies toward reducing risks to regional security. This essentially means looking beyond narrow “threats” to American interests like Venezuela or Cuba, drugs, or terrorism, and instead work with Latin America to help countries reduce their concerns. Such as: citizen insecurity, organized crime, regional distrust, uneasy civil-military relations, emerging tyrants – that are leading them to increase their defense expenditures. The United Sates cannot allow China to take on that role, since once it is lost it will never be recovered. There are still many people (in all walks of life) that love and respect the United States, all the United States has to do is take its rightful place as leader.

Unlike in the twentieth century, the hallmarks of US policy should be encouraging demilitarization, strengthening civilian institutions, helping reduce corruption and fostering bilateral and regional dialogues to reduce threats and counteract the impulse to seek military solutions to territorial disputes. This will be a difficult pivot for many in the US defense and foreign policy communities to execute, but today’s complexity makes it clear that there is really no other choice. The United Sates needs the Americas and believe it or not the Americas will respect and follow the United States if it holds out its hand, smiles, and says “follow me, let’s work together”.

Well, that is my opinion at least.


Back to bottling my Grenache

Miragedriver said:

What really scares me is the polarization of Latin America into two camps. The American side with democracy and freedom and the Chinese/Russian side with totalitarian regimes and closed economies.

The United States is no longer able to act unaccountably as a dominant power, as it did during the “gunboat diplomacy” years.

Click to expand...

It seems you're aware that USA has acted unilaterally for quite some time completely against freedom and democracy with its Monroe Doctrine, yet paint a good vs evil picture of the three world powers.

Jeff, I have a feeling you will delete this again, but am I being political by pointing out facts such a the one below?

Sobering Truths About America’s Imperialist Crimes Against Humanity | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

counterprime said:

It seems you're aware that USA has acted unilaterally for quite some time completely against freedom and democracy with its Monroe Doctrine, yet paint a good vs evil picture of the three world powers.

Jeff, I have a feeling you will delete this again, but am I being political by pointing out facts such a the one below?

Sobering Truths About America’s Imperialist Crimes Against Humanity | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yes I realize that. A good example would be the removal of Salvador Allende and the placement of Augusto Pinochet by the CIA.

However, I am referencing to activities occurring within the last fifteen to twenty years and the current/existing trend of the United States to support democracies in Latin America. As opposed to China and the Russian are more involved with strong men and authoritarian socialist regimes.

An exception being Brazil, which has purchased some Anti Aircraft Missiles from Russia and some Chinese Coast Guard Vessels




Back to bottling my Grenache

Miragedriver said:

T. Most nations that neglect their national defence soon become a playground for land acquisition, discontinues being a sovereign nation, or become a puppet of its neighbours.




Back to bottling my Grenache

Click to expand...

I agree with many of your points of views, in a civilized world, the reality wars are foolish, that includes any war.

However wars do happen, and nations need to defend themselves.

As a Latin american too, i agree with you that Latin America is divided upon two camps, one is pro-US and the Other is pro-China/Russia.

Some people in Latin America view China and Russia as ways to counter act the US, the fact Bolivia and Venezuela buy Chinese and Russian hardware, and even nations like Brazil and Mexico buy from time to time Russian military hardware, shows some　people view the importance of diversifying.


Argentina has approached China, the Z-11 Helicopter deal, plus some other deals such as trains, mine projects shows the US has declined its influence for two main reasons:

a) NAFTA has shown that Mexico while has been industrialized its economy to the levels of countries like England, poverty has increased, and its political and economic sovereignty has been reduced.
This has been seen in the Brazilian and Argentine political circles as a need to bring China and Russia to counter the USA.

B)China has been the main engine for the growth of the exports in South america, basically now is a major trade partner for many south american nations, and in the case of Argentina, could replace the weapons imports from the West while allowing for some tech transfers the US and England are unwilling to supply.