Why the Falklands are back

Islands are having a moment, no?

You’ve got the Chagos stuck in a kind of diplomatic limbo, Putin doing victory laps through Japan-claimed Iturup, then MrBeast in Fiji for his latest Survivor collab.

But we need to talk about another archipelago off the coast of southern Argentina, known as the Falklands to anglophones, or Las Malvinas to Spanish-speakers.

Why?

Argentina’s Milei just threatened criminal charges against Israeli-listed energy firm Navitas if it charges ahead with its planned oil drilling near the islands.

And that’s just a dunk off last week’s self-serve alley-oop, when his fiery speech warned Argentina will have to “act quickly” to liberate the islands from British rule, concluding “there is no other path forward.”

So what — and we cannot stress this enough — is going on?

Way back in the 18th century, the French (1764), Brits (1765), and Spaniards (1767) all planted flags in the uninhabited islands, and things soon got spicy:

• Spain bought the French colony (1767), but…

• Spain then withdrew as its empire crumbled (1811), all just as…

• Argentina started to break from Spanish rule (1810-1816).

The Argentines then argued they inherited Madrid’s islands, but the Brits evicted the small Argentine garrison in 1833, and have run the territory ever since!

Or at least until 1982, when Argentina’s military dictatorship suddenly invaded. Why? Sure, a lingering territorial claim, but also the dictatorship really needed a win back home, where its dirty war was being exposed, its economy was in freefall, and its generals were losing the streets.

So President Galtieri gambled Thatcher wouldn’t fight, but boy did he lose that bet. He also lost 649 men (the Brits lost 255). And after two brutal months, his troops surrendered on a Monday, and Galtieri himself was out by the Thursday.

That’s how Thatcher got a rebuttal to persistent claims of British decline, while Argentina got a national injury that still throbs to this day.

Speaking of this day...

President Milei never actually seemed too focused on these islands back when he ran his insurgent campaign: he got in trouble from hardliners when he noted you can’t just disregard the islands’ residents, plus he even praised Thatcher herself!

So… why is President Milei now weighing back into all this again?

Sure, there was the FIFA World Cup incident, which saw the Argentines fined for waving a “Malvinas are Argentinian” banner after they beat England. But that’s like singing the national anthem on the biggest stage after beating the old enemy. Mood music.

The actual sparks came in…

1. May: Navitas announced it’ll drill from 2027, and produce oil from 2028

2. June: Milei hit record low approvals amid austerity and corruption headlines

3. July: Another embarrassing poll found 66% of Argentines thought Milei (unlike the FIFA team) didn’t even care about the islands, and then…

4. August: President Trump flagged that relative US neutrality on the issue was “under review”, later linking it all to London’s non-help on Iran.

So that brings us to September, a ~year out from high-stakes elections, when Milei — Trump’s favourite Argentine in the region’s new Donroe Doctrine era — told his nation that the “winds of change” are now blowing in Argentina’s favour.

To put it another way, this is all a mix of mood music, sparks, fear, and opportunity.

And so how are the Brits responding?

They’re keeping a stiff upper lip rather than fuel Milei’s moment, calmly reiterating that the Falklands are British, and that 99.8% of Falklanders want to stay British.

At least, that was the result of the 2013 referendum, which Argentina dismissed at the time as a mere “parody of squatters”.

Sound even smarter:

• Recent polls suggest 60% of Argentinians think Milei’s shift on the Falklands/Malvinas is due to political convenience.