The Student Room Group

Putin signs ANTI-UK military pact with ARGENTINA over Falklands

ARGENTINA'S president has praised Russian support for her country's claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, risking a fresh diplomatic spat with the UK.

In a direct challenge to the UK and stability in the region, the Russian president also announced the two countries would be increasing “military collaboration".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/572747/Argentina-and-Russia-tensions-Falkland-Islands-military-pact

This is karma for Cameron dancing over Russias borders in the Ukraine.
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I agreed with Putin that his annexation of Ukraine was fair with a democratic vote, Russian soldiers had to intervene in Ukraine as the situation was getting out of hand and since they had borders with Russia and had lots of ethnic Russians they had the right to intervene.

However, Putin has made a double standard here he wants us to recognise the vote of the Ukrainians and democracy but then wants to help Argentina take over the Falkands Islands, who voted to remain part of the UK.

This is getting very serious now we may be on the bring of WWIII as the UK will not be able to fight Argentina and Russia alone it isn't strong enough so will need to force other Western countries in and they will be obliged to to fight since the people of the Falklands voted British in the election with a very large majority so any military action would mean they would have to conquer the islands.Maybe I'm a negative person but it is hard to see such a situation not eventually escalating into full scale war as neither side looks ready to back down.
(edited 8 years ago)
Not really. If you read up on what that woman has Said over the years and support she's claimed its nothing new.

Russia's made the same claims before, China as well/

Argentina is a messed up country with no military bearing in the area whatsoever.

does the article say how the Argentinians are planning on paying for this support financially.
(edited 8 years ago)
The continuing pissing contest over the Falklands only takes place because it is convenient for the argentine government and the more jingoistic elements of British politics.
Original post by Quantex
The continuing pissing contest over the Falklands only takes place because it is convenient for the argentine government and the more jingoistic elements of British politics.


Actually, it's normally used by the Argentinians to detract from domestic issues.
As jingoism goes, the UK isn't that vocal.

For example, I haven't seen anything in the MSM about the sent aims trying to sue UK companies in Italy for oil exploration activities in te Falklands.
Reply 5
There is nothing in that article on what has been signed, other than vague reference to some agreement. This amounts to nothing at all. Putin is merely making this agreement because he wants to hit back at the West's involvement in Ukraine. He is doing the same thing in North Korea. Relations with these nations will be dropped as soon as it is convenient. Once tensions between the West and Russia cool off Argentina will be forgotten again.
Original post by FartyMcGuy
I'm British and support Russia and Argentina on this issue.

Sorry call me a traitor, but I know who is in the wrong and who is the right.

The world is tired of America, and it's lackeys (Britain) creating conflicts around the world.


I agree with Russia on Ukraine, the conflict in which is the product of EU expansionism, but the Falklands has been British since before Argentina existed (itself just a Spanish colony). From where do you derive this "right"?
Reply 7
Original post by Dalek1099
I agreed with Putin that his annexation of Ukraine was fair with a democratic vote, Russian soldiers had to intervene in Ukraine as the situation was getting out of hand and since they had borders with Russia and had lots of ethnic Russians they had the right to intervene.


Just thinking that some people within a state share an ethnicity with you does not give you any right to invade a sovereign country. Hell, why not just get the African Union to invade the United States every time a black man gets shot by the police.

There's nothing democratic about illegal secession from a state. Crimea is still a part of Ukraine.
Original post by L i b

There's nothing democratic about illegal secession from a state. Crimea is still a part of Ukraine.


I'm of the mind that people have every right to secede from a state should they wish.
As disrespectful as invading our territory and sinking 6 of our ships and killing 255 of our armed forces? As disrespectful as not apologising for that action? As disrespectful as maintaining an illegal claim on the islands despite the wishes of the people who live there? Trust me Argentina you have no idea how deep my lack of respect for you as a country goes
Reply 10
Original post by Farm_Ecology
I'm of the mind that people have every right to secede from a state should they wish.


I'm afraid that's simply not a credible position to hold, even in theory. People cannot simply depart from a state - the whole point of a state is to exercise a monopoly of force and to enforce its laws against those would like not to follow them.

You can, perhaps, hold the view that states shouldn't exist - in which case, we're getting very much into anarchist theory - but states simply cannot exist where people have a right to secede.

I've been fairly generous and assumed you're invoking a moral "right" here. In legal terms, your statement is simply inaccurate.
Argentina just cant accept that the falklands are british.
Original post by L i b
Just thinking that some people within a state share an ethnicity with you does not give you any right to invade a sovereign country. Hell, why not just get the African Union to invade the United States every time a black man gets shot by the police.

There's nothing democratic about illegal secession from a state. Crimea is still a part of Ukraine.


One black men getting shot is not a crisis though(if one man was killed in Libya you wouldn't join forces against Gaddafi) if there was a genocide scheme against black men then the African countries would have every right to invade lets not remember that this unrest in Ukraine was dangerous for Russia as they were on the border to them ,the people wanted change and to join Russia and with the armies help they were allowed a fair vote for democracy.
Original post by L i b
I'm afraid that's simply not a credible position to hold, even in theory. People cannot simply depart from a state - the whole point of a state is to exercise a monopoly of force and to enforce its laws against those would like not to follow them.

You can, perhaps, hold the view that states shouldn't exist - in which case, we're getting very much into anarchist theory - but states simply cannot exist where people have a right to secede.

I've been fairly generous and assumed you're invoking a moral "right" here. In legal terms, your statement is simply inaccurate.


Thats called Dictatorship the West have supported democracy allowing states to become free like Kosovo before if they vote for it( by your logic this shouldn't have been allowed) but surprisingly not when a free state chooses to join Russia, the West basically believe in Democracy when it suits them.

A state is there to enforce the laws that the people of the state on average believe in this is called democracy(this should be the same for large regions too and so if they want to leave they should be allowed to do so)-Crimea joining Russia will help reduce the discrimination against Ethnic Russians and provide a lot more job opportunities.
Reply 14
Original post by Dalek1099
Thats called Dictatorship the West have supported democracy allowing states to become free like Kosovo before if they vote for it( by your logic this shouldn't have been allowed) but surprisingly not when a free state chooses to join Russia, the West basically believe in Democracy when it suits them.


That is not a dictatorship, it is a normal, functioning state.

Kosovo's secession would not have been allowed in normal circumstances. There was, of course, the existence of extensive conflict in the region, and in particular the targeting of ethnic Kosovars by Serbian forces - Serbia remains uncooperative in attempts to prosecute people involved in this process.

When it is necessary to prevent a genocide, crack on. Sovereign states have a right not to be invaded, yet Serbia was indeed invaded by NATO force in order to prevent this; equally states have a right to uphold their territorial integrity, but obviously it comes with limitations.

A state is there to enforce the laws that the people of the state on average believe in this is called democracy(this should be the same for large regions too and so if they want to leave they should be allowed to do so)-


The first point is correct, but then to make up some nonsense about "large regions" completely undermines your argument. A democracy is a system of one person, one vote: what you are talking about is dividing people into ethnic, regional and other groups. That is not democratic, quite the opposite in fact.
Reply 15
Original post by Dalek1099
One black men getting shot is not a crisis though(if one man was killed in Libya you wouldn't join forces against Gaddafi) if there was a genocide scheme against black men then the African countries would have every right to invade lets not remember that this unrest in Ukraine was dangerous for Russia as they were on the border to them ,the people wanted change and to join Russia and with the armies help they were allowed a fair vote for democracy.


Are you seriously suggesting there was a campaign of genocide in Crimea?
I love Putin. What a lad.
This is much less important than you make out... Russia will not fire on a British warship.
Original post by L i b
That is not a dictatorship, it is a normal, functioning state.

Kosovo's secession would not have been allowed in normal circumstances. There was, of course, the existence of extensive conflict in the region, and in particular the targeting of ethnic Kosovars by Serbian forces - Serbia remains uncooperative in attempts to prosecute people involved in this process.

When it is necessary to prevent a genocide, crack on. Sovereign states have a right not to be invaded, yet Serbia was indeed invaded by NATO force in order to prevent this; equally states have a right to uphold their territorial integrity, but obviously it comes with limitations.



The first point is correct, but then to make up some nonsense about "large regions" completely undermines your argument. A democracy is a system of one person, one vote: what you are talking about is dividing people into ethnic, regional and other groups. That is not democratic, quite the opposite in fact.


This is exactly the point though there was loads of violence and riots in Ukraine and the people wanted to join Russia, if this happened in Ireland then I bet the UK would send their soldiers over there too and conduct a fair referendum about whether a region of Ireland wanted to join the UK(the violence would have a big negative effect on countries who border the country like with Russia-Ukraine so its is in their interests to invade and control the situation).
Reply 19
Original post by Dalek1099
This is exactly the point though there was loads of violence and riots in Ukraine and the people wanted to join Russia, if this happened in Ireland then I bet the UK would send their soldiers over there too and conduct a fair referendum about whether a region of Ireland wanted to join the UK(the violence would have a big negative effect on countries who border the country like with Russia-Ukraine so its is in their interests to invade and control the situation).


A few thousand people involved in protests does not a conflict make - and again, there are no claims of genocide. So far as I can see, the only death attributable to the unrest prior to the invasion was a woman being trampled in Simferopol.

Between 26 February and 28 February, it is not clear how much Russian influence there was in Crimea. It is fairly clear they were providing weapons, equipment and actually supporting the breakdown in legal order.

No, the UK would not invade Ireland. Ireland is an ally of the UK and there is no scope for adding bits to the UK by invasion and annexation. This isn't the Middle Ages. If we deployed troops to support law and order in a foreign state, they'd be working with the government, not pointing guns at them.

Quick Reply

Latest