Why Britain Pays So Much to Defend the Falklands

If you need any evidence about unpredictably the war in Iran is changing the world, consider how it might end up affecting a mostly forgotten conflict over on the other side of the planet on some windswept mostly empty islands that only two countries even care about. When you look at these islands on Google or Apple Maps, you'll see them labeled as the Falkland Islands, which are what the British call them, and then in parentheses Islas Malvinas, which is what the Argentines call them. The first sign of many that these islands are in fact bitterly disputed between the United Kingdom and have been for about two centuries now. And at roughly 12,000 square kilometers in overall area, these islands are physically larger than you might have initially expected, coming in at about the same size as Northern Ireland or the island of Puerto Rico, making them by far the largest territorial dispute of the modern United Kingdom. The islands are currently controlled and administered by the UK and are home to a little more than 3,600 British citizens, two-thirds of whom all simply live within the island's capital of Stanley. But what Argentina strongly disputes and has long claimed is an illegal colonial era occupation of their land that they even went to war over back in the 1980s. While the United States has historically maintained a neutral position, balancing between both countries that have usually been close American allies. But in a recent internal Pentagon memo that was leaked and published by Reuters in late April of 2026, the Trump administration is evidently exploring reversing this long-time position of neutrality on the Falklands-Malvinas issue by shifting more towards Argentina. The memo explored potential methods that the United States could take as retaliation or punishment against its own NATO allies for their refusal to take part or offer assistance in the US-Israeli war on Iran. Trump has grown increasingly publicly frustrated with Britain's Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, over this issue in recent months. — Sir Starmer has repeatedly stated that the war in Iran does not concern Britain and that Britain will not take any part in it. He initially refused to allow the US to utilize British air bases for the purpose of attacking Iran and has refused to contribute any British forces to assist with reopening the Strait of Hormuz after the Iranians forced it shut. He has also strongly voiced his opposition towards Trump's separate demands to annex Greenland and has been publicly critical of Trump's severing of American military and financial aid to Ukraine as well. All of which has invoked Trump's personal fury. — He has denounced Sir Starmer as no Winston Churchill and has referred to the British government as cowards for refusing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Whilst Sir Starmer has voiced his own frustration at the war in Iran raising British energy prices. It is increasingly being considered the biggest rupture in US-UK relations since the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. And it's not just their leadership that is currently divided, either. The American and British publics are going increasingly distant from one another, as well, as shown by this data collected from Gallup and YouGov. At the beginning of the 21st century, more than 80% of the public in both countries held a favorable view of the other. In just the past five years, though, the favorable view of Britain in America has declined from 91% to 76%, while the favorable view of America in Britain has practically crashed from a high of more than 80% 34% today. And so, in the context of these deteriorating relations, enters the leaked memo from the Pentagon suggesting that Washington is actively considering a dramatic change in policy relating to the Falklands-Malvinas dispute, especially in light of Trump's significantly closer personal relationship with Argentina's President Javier Milei. Trump has previously referred to Milei as his favorite president and the two are very close ideologically conservative allies whom Trump has repeatedly helped both financially and politically. Milei has closely aligned his own foreign policy with Trump, especially when it relates to Israel and the war on Iran. And ironically, the roles have basically reversed since 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands Malvinas. When then President Ronald Reagan's close personal relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was decisive in Washington ultimately siding with Britain during the conflict. Now, if Trump's much closer personal relationship with Javier Milei leads the United States in a formally abandoning neutrality in the Falklands Malvinas dispute by firmly siding with Argentina on the issue instead, both as a favor to Milei and as a punishment for Sir Keir Starmer and the British, the implications would be profound and it could even result in the UK becoming forced to negotiate with Argentina, which could end up resulting in the UK even losing their control over the islands at a critical moment. — American diplomatically siding with Argentina over this dispute would probably represent the final and irrevocable death of the so-called special relationship that has defined

US-UK relations since the Second World War. And it would almost certainly result in swift British retaliation, like revoking the US military's access to important British military bases like Lakenheath and Mildenhall in the UK mainland, and Ascension Island in the South Atlantic, and most importantly of all, to Diego Garcia in the center of the Indian Ocean, which the US military has been able to use for decades as a forward operating base for its B-2 bomber fleet to attack targets across the Middle East from. Whatever ends up happening, the Argentinian side has reacted with elation to even the prospect of Washington taking its side in this dispute. Javier Milei has already stated that he is actively working on a roadmap for the islands to become a part of Argentina through diplomatic means. While his vice president, Victoria Villarruel, has taken a much more explosive and confrontational posture on social media. Writing on X shortly after the Pentagon memo was leaked, "quote, Today, more than ever, the Malvinas are Argentine. The discussion over the sovereignty of our islands is between states. Therefore, the United Kingdom must discuss bilaterally with Argentina the claim that we maintain. The Kelpers, which for context is a derogatory slang term used by Argentines for the Falkland Islander residents, are English people who live in Argentine territory. They are not part of the discussion. " Adding on later in another post, "quote, If they feel English, they should go back to the thousands of miles away where their country is. " End quote. The British government, meanwhile, has responded as they almost always have, that their sovereignty over the islands is completely non-negotiable, and that the right of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders themselves, who overwhelmingly wish to remain British, must be respected. Despite this, the gravity of the dispute that is felt between the Argentinean and British publics could likely not be any more different. The Falklands Malvinas are located only about 500 km away from Argentina's shores, but nearly 13,000 km away from Britain on the other side of the world. If you asked an Argentinean and a Briton to point these islands out on a map, it's almost certain that the Argentine would be more likely to be able to do so. And this is because Argentina's claim to the islands is firmly ingrained into the country's entire national identity, its education, and its politics. It is explicitly written into the Argentine constitution that the government's claim to the islands cannot be abandoned under any circumstance. All official government maps produced in Argentina and all public school textbooks display the islands as belonging to Argentina. This map, the Argentinian government's official map as of 2022, prominently displays the Falklands Malvinas as a part of the nation. Along with other islands currently controlled by the British they also dispute like the South Georgia and Sandwich Islands along with the Antarctic Peninsula. The Argentine passport prominently displays the islands as a part of the nation. Argentine national identity cards feature an outline of the islands on their back but they are even featured on Argentine currency like the 50 peso note. The Argentine weather service even provides forecasts for the Falklands Malvinas every single day. Well, the main arrival terminal in Buenos Aires prominently displays a giant billboard that reads "Las Islas Malvinas son de Argentina" or "The Malvinas Islands are Argentinian" one of the country's most well-known patriotic slogans. The islands are almost constantly present in the public conscience of Argentines frequently ranking near the very top of the country's foreign policy priorities. While recent polling has shown that more than 80% of Argentina's population supports continuing the claim to them across the country's internal political spectrum regardless of left or right-wing viewpoint. And this is all despite the fact that save for only a couple of months in 1982 when they invaded and occupied the islands, they have been continually controlled and administered by the British for nearly two centuries now since 1833. — And meanwhile in Britain, the issue over the islands is a much more distant and overlooked one. They are geographically far away and out of mind for most. Are never prominently featured on any government maps, documents, or currency. Are rarely discussed outside of important anniversaries or news events typically ranking near the bottom of foreign policy priorities. While polling as recently as 2024 suggests that 46% of Britons wouldn't even care either way if the islands became Argentine at some point in the future. And in order to understand where this conflict may be going in the future and what it means in the present, it helps to start with how it all began in the first place and why the disputed history of these islands had made them the most geopolitically controversial landmass today in the South American continent. Even the exact date of discovery of these islands are presently disputed. The British claim that the islands were first discovered by the English navigator John Davis in 1592

but the Argentines generally assert that they were discovered earlier by both Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 and again by Ferdinand Magellan in 1520 — who were operating on behalf of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns respectively. Regardless, the first conclusively documented human landing on these islands took place more than a century later than any of these early sightings in 1690 when the English Captain John Strong made his landing and named them after his patron Anthony Carey who was then the fifth Viscount of Falkland. The English found the islands to be completely uninhabited at the time of this landing and they're broadly believed by modern archaeologists to have never been settled or inhabited by any humans before this landing. Which interestingly makes the Falklands Malvinas one of the few landmasses in the world outside of Europe that truly was first discovered and settled by Europeans without any preexisting indigenous population. Which also in effect makes the European settlers who later came to these islands their actual true indigenous population. But those settlers would come much later in the islands history because John Strong left the islands with all of his men very quickly after setting foot on them, considering them to be essentially a hard to inhabit windswept rainy rocky set of islands without even a single tree to speak of anywhere on their surface and where agriculture was considered too challenging to be worth stay. The first actual permanent settlement on the islands wouldn't be established until 1764 and it was by the French here on the eastern large island that they called Port Saint Louis. Then just 2 years later in 1766, the British established the second permanent settlement in the islands on the westernmost major island that they called Port Egmont. Even though Spain didn't have any actual physical presence on the islands at the time, they still claimed them anyway. And after they discovered the French and British had established colonies on them without their approval, they grew outraged. And so France agreed to sell their colony at Port Saint Louis to Spain in 1766 in order to assuage tensions. Spain then renamed that colony to Puerto Soledad, but tensions lingered with the British presence that continued at Port Egmont after they refused to sell. With both the British and the Spanish coming to claim sovereignty over all of the islands against each other. As the American Revolutionary War approached, however, financial pressures on the British forced them to abandon their colony at Port Egmont in 1774. They left behind a plaque and a flag in their colony proclaiming that British sovereignty over the islands was not being surrendered and then abandoned it for decades. That ended up leaving the Spanish in de facto control over all of the islands for a long time. Though Britain never abandoned its claim to have a right to return at any time. The Spanish ended up destroying the remains of the abandoned British settlement at Port Egmont, hauled off the plaque and the flag they left behind to Buenos Aires, and between 1774 and 1811, the islands were directly ruled as a part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, the colonial predecessor to modern-day Argentina, whose capital was Buenos Aires. 18 Spanish governors were appointed to administer the islands during this time. But then in 1811, facing pressure from the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and from the rise of independence movements in Latin America, the Spanish ultimately abandoned their colony in the islands as well. And just like the British did decades earlier, they also left behind a plaque and a flag claiming continued sovereignty over the islands for Spain despite their abandonment. That effectively left behind no actual governmental presence on the islands at all for a number of years, as it came to become primarily used as a hunting ground for British and American sealers. Argentina would ultimately declare its independence from Spain in 1816, and believed that it inherited Spain's claim to the Falklands Malvinas Islands as well, despite them still being abandoned at the time. Argentina eventually got around to sending an expedition to establish a settlement on the uninhabited island a few years later in 1824, but the settlers were severely unprepared for the climate and the lack of resources on the island they would face. And so they gave up and abandoned the settlement after only a few months. A second Argentine settlement attempt in 1826 also failed for similar reasons, and then a third attempt in 1828 finally established a small fledgling colony of the abandoned Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad that they renamed again to Puerto Luis. And it was this third settlement attempt by the Argentines that led to tensions with the British, who despite having had no physical presence on the islands for more than half a century by this point, had also still never abandoned their claim to continued sovereignty over them. In 1829, Argentina began appointing military governors of the islands based on their small and struggling settlement at Puerto Luis, and they then trying to assert their sovereignty over the islands more strongly. So, a few years later in 1833, the British decided to send a naval squadron to re-establish their own sovereignty on the islands and to counter the Argentine presence.

And this is where some of the historical interpretations of what happened diverge. The British showed up to the struggling Argentine colony at Puerto Luis in 1833, and found that by that point it was only home to around 30 people remaining, which was the only Argentine presence on the islands. The British demanded that the Argentines surrender and to lower their flag and replace it with a British one. — The top-ranking Argentine officer in charge of the colony calculated that he was dramatically outnumbered and outgunned by the British. And though he protested against the British verbally, he ultimately agreed to surrender without a fight and left back for the Argentinian mainland. Britain then assumed direct control of her Puerto Luis and the rest of the islands, and they've mostly maintained control over them with a permanent presence for the past nearly two centuries ever since. Argentina's official record of events claims that the British then expelled all of the 30 or so Argentine settlers who were then living on the islands. Though the only historical records that have been made publicly available indicate that only four of them chose to leave voluntarily afterward, and the rest of them stayed. Now, Argentina's position since this time has historically vacillated between mild indignation and passionate rage and accusations that the British stole the islands out from under them under duress in 1833. Argentina presently asserts that they have never once in their history given up their claim to sovereignty over the islands, and they regard the continuous British presence on them over the past nearly two centuries as a long illegal occupation. — Britain, meanwhile, reorganized the islands into a crown colony in 1840 and then encouraging settlers from the mainland to begin migrating to them, whose descendants eventually grew into the modern population of British residents on the islands numbering around 3,600, all of whom Britain regards as full British citizens with the right of self-determination. And all of whom Argentina regards as illegal occupiers or settlers who do not have a right to self-determination. As early as 1885, Argentina was publishing maps displaying the Falklands Malvinas as their own territory. And although the British report that they only ever acknowledged one Argentinian government protest over the issue prior to the Second World War, independent researchers have claimed at least 27 recorded protests on behalf of the Argentinian government between 1833 and the Second World War, nearly all of which were simply never acknowledged or ignored by the British government and so were never recorded by them in their official record. Regardless, the issue with the sovereignty dispute over the Falklands Malvinas remained almost entirely inconsequential and forgotten by virtually everybody till after the end of the Second World War. When the British Empire began declining and granting many of their former colonies their independence, which led to the post-war Argentinian government sensing that they too had an opportunity for regaining control over the Falklands Malvinas as well, which they began presenting as another colonial possession of Britain's that should be returned. Argentina immediately raised the sovereignty dispute over the islands at the UN after its formation in 1945 and called for bilateral negotiations over their status with the UK, which the UK refused under the argument that the islands are an inseparable part of the country. And this has broadly remained constant ever since, with Argentina demanding that the sovereignty over the islands should be negotiated between them and the UK bilaterally and with the UK simply refusing to entertain negotiations over the issue at all with the belief that it's already been settled since the British population of the islands don't want to be Argentine. Notably, however, the UK offered to have the dispute over the islands taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to decide in 1947, in 1948, and again in 1955. All of which were rejected by Argentina, who continued demanding bilateral negotiations with the UK directly and exclusively without any third-party mediation. Now, even before this issue would eventually erupt in a full-scale war between the UK and Argentina in the 1980s, the drama over the islands' disputed status was steadily building and building up for years. In 1965, the UN passed a resolution that called on the UK and Argentina to enter into the bilateral negotiations that Argentina was demanding in order to find a peaceful solution to the island status, which the UK continued ignoring while asserting that the island sovereignty and the wishes of its residents was non-negotiable. The next year in 1966, a group of radical Argentine nationalists hijacked a civilian airliner and forced the flight's captain at gunpoint to land in the Falklands Malvinas. Once there, they raised the Argentine flag on the island, took several of the British islanders hostage at gunpoint, and demanded that the island's governor immediately recognize Argentina's sovereignty. They were immediately surrounded by the island's small garrison of Royal Marines and local militia, however, and surrendered the very next day. Though it was an early harbinger of things to come and a sign of just how seriously some Argentines

took their country's claim to the islands and their anger at Britain's refusal to negotiate. Across the 1970s, the UK and Argentina engaged in some talks with each other over the Falklands Malvinas issue. At this time, the islands were of very little economic use to the UK with a tiny population whose economy was almost entirely dependent on fishing and sheep herding. So, the thought of giving them up to Argentina in order to smooth over relations with the whole of Latin America, which the dispute was constantly playing, was considered by many in the British government to actually be prudent. The idea of establishing joint sovereignty in the islands with Argentina was discussed intermittently within the British government throughout the 1970s. As was an idea about giving the islands to Argentina and leasing them back from them for a period of 99 years in order to give the islanders generations worth of notice to plan their lives accordingly. Similar to the arrangement that Britain had previously made with Hong Kong before returning it back to China. But, none of these ideas ever advanced any further than simple discussions and certainly never became official British governmental policy. The discussions were always extremely politically toxic among the Falkland Islanders themselves, who overwhelmingly wanted to remain British and did not want to join Argentina under any circumstances. While Argentina posed the ideas as well, since they preferred an immediate and exclusive transfer of sovereignty of the islands instead. Protests and demands for negotiations by the Argentine government continued throughout this entire period as did Britain's ignoring. So then, with the diplomacy still going nowhere, multiple compounding factors contributed to the outbreak of major warfare over the islands in the early 1980s. Argentina at this time was being ruled by a far-right military junta dictatorship that was growing increasingly unpopular over the tanking economy and was facing large-scale protests and civil unrest. The junta calculated that if they could just score an easy victory to win back public support again, like by finally taking control over the Falklands Malvinas Islands with minimal effort, which was something broadly supported by the entire Argentine political spectrum, they could get out of their rut and continue staying in power. The junta catastrophically miscalculated that neither Britain nor America would ultimately do anything to resist a full-scale surprise invasion of the islands. The junta was viciously anti-communist and had been useful to Washington during the Cold War by crushing the left within Argentina during the Dirty War, in which tens of thousands of left-leaning Argentines were disappeared and killed. Well, they also deployed military advisers and volunteers to combat communist insurgencies elsewhere in Latin America, like in Nicaragua. And thus, this led the junta to calculate that they were too valuable to America for America to intervene against them over an invasion of the Falklands Malvinas. And in the case of Britain, the junta could see how extremely unseriously they were taking the defense of the islands and region at the time. The islands were only defended by one Royal Navy patrol vessel, and even that was announced to be withdrawing from the region by the British in 1981. In addition to the Falklands Malvinas Islands, the Argentines also dispute the sovereignty of nearby islands like South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands with the UK as well. And in early 1982, after a group of Argentine scrap metal workers occupied South Georgia and rose the Argentine flag on the island, and Britain didn't really strongly respond to it, the junta interpreted it as further evidence that Britain would not strongly push back against an invasion of the larger Falklands Malvinas Islands either. So, at about this time, the junta prepared an all-out amphibious invasion of the Falklands Malvinas Islands that they code-named Plan Goa, after India's invasion and annexation of the Portuguese colony of Goa in 1961. The invasion was launched on the 2nd of April, 1982. It consisted of an initial amphibious invasion force of 680 Argentine Marines and commandos, along with 20 amphibious assault vehicles, assisted by numerous naval vessels, helicopters, and aircraft support from the mainland that was only about 500 km away. Meanwhile, the British defenses on the islands at this time consisted of only 68 Royal Marines and a couple dozen lightly armed local militia who had no heavy weaponry or armor, no meaningful air defenses, no major warships, and no combat aircraft. The British simply did not anticipate that Argentina would actually be bold enough to launch an all-out amphibious invasion of the islands. But, they did, and they brought enough firepower and manpower with them, outnumbering the local defenders by 10 to 1, that they were able to rapidly overpower them and force to surrender in less than 48 hours. Argentina then rapidly reinforced their troop presence on the islands to roughly 10,000 men, the largest number of people the islands have ever seen at one time in their

history, and they fully expected the British to roll over and accept the situation for what it was, and simply surrender the islands, believing that it would prove too logistically challenging for them to force them out since the British mainland was nearly 13,000 km away. But, that's not what ended up happening. And after Argentina ignored a UN Security Council resolution to immediately withdraw, Margaret Thatcher's relatively new government in the UK decided to respond to the Argentine invasion with a naval and air task force to kick them out instead. What followed was a devastating and bloody 74-day war over the islands that saw some of the most intense military action fought by Western armies since the Second World War. By the end of it, when Argentina surrendered, 649 Argentine service members had been killed in action, and more than 1,600 others had been wounded, while 255 British service members were killed in action, and another 775 others wounded. Along with another three Falkland Islander civilians were also killed during the war as well. The legacy and consequences of this war have been felt heavily across both Argentina and the UK, as well as in the United States and across Latin America. The disaster of the war's outcome for Argentina contributed to the hunter regime's collapse shortly afterwards, and along with the legacy of the long dirty war that preceded it, contributed to decades of underfunding of the country's military. Although Argentina has still never abandoned their claim to the Falklands Malvinas. Almost ironically, Argentina's decision to invade the islands in 1982 and to fight a bloody war over them has also ever since effectively made it impossible for the UK to ever consider giving them up now. While the British government was actively having serious discussions on giving the islands up in the 1970s and the early '80s immediately before the war, the fact that 255 British service members' blood was spilt on the islands to keep them British during the 1982 war makes giving them away now seem like a betrayal of their sacrifice, which very few UK politicians have since been willing to even suggest. The Falklands War remains the third bloodiest war that the UK has fought since the 1950s. It resulted in more British deaths than the war in Iraq, and it resulted in roughly 1/3 of the British military's deaths in just two months as the entire troubles in Northern Ireland caused over nearly three decades. Giving up the islands to Argentina now after all of that sacrifice, probably to most Britons, is utterly unthinkable, and it makes the Falklands completely incomparable to other territories that the UK gave up like Hong Kong. And for the United States, the consequences of the war have remained underappreciated, but no less consequential. While the US indeed initially took a neutral position in the war when it started, attempting to balance between two of its top Cold War allies, it eventually sided firmly with the British side, providing Britain with missiles, intelligence, fuel, and diplomatic support that was considered to be so vital, one former top advisor of Thatcher's government, along with the assistant US defense secretary at the time, have both claimed that without it, Britain would have likely lost the war and would have had to accept Argentina's occupation. Much of the decision to do so was predicated on then US President Reagan and then UK Prime Minister Thatcher's exceptionally close personal and ideological relationship, but the US decision to do so was reputationally disastrous throughout Latin America and the global south. Every single country in Latin America backs the Argentine claim to sovereignty over the Falklands Malvinas. And Washington's decision to throw what was then the most anti-communist and pro-American country in Latin America under the bus over the issue in favor of a European nation showed plainly to everyone else in Latin America that none of them were actually safe from the Americans. Argentina was and is a member of the Rio Treaty and the Organization of American States alongside the US. And so America's decision to back its NATO ally Britain in the war against its fellow Rio Treaty ally Argentina was widely seen as a massive break from the previous century of the US prioritizing hemispheric unity against outside non-hemispheric powers from Europe. When Mexico later withdrew from the Rio Treaty two decades later in 2002, one of its top listed grievances for doing so was pointing out how nobody in the alliance came to assist Argentina during the 1982 Falklands Malvinas War. To the rest of Latin America and the global South, the conflict over the Falklands Malvinas dispute came to be seen as yet another battle in the ongoing global struggle for decolonization.

And Argentina's decision to attack the islands came to be seen by this camp in the same lens as India's decision to attack the Portuguese colony of Goa or Egypt's decision to forcefully seize the British and French-owned Suez Canal. Actions that were similarly by Western nations at the time they happened, but which steadily came to become accepted. Since the end of the war and their military victory, Britain has also substantially increased their military defenses of the islands along with their rhetorical and political commitments to keeping the islands British indefinitely. In 1985, just a few years after the end of the war, the UK opened up a vast military fortress on the islands called RAF Mount Pleasant. Complete with long runways for fighters and rapid resupply by heavy cargo planes. Hard and concrete shelters for aircraft storage, radar and command facilities, and barracks and logistics sites. This has enabled the British military the ability to rapidly airlift reinforcements to the islands during a time of crisis. Well, most importantly of all, the British also maintain a permanent presence of four Eurofighter Typhoon FGR. 4 fighter jets at RAF Mount Pleasant, as well. Which are highly advanced 4. 5 generation fighters that are substantially more capable than anything in the modern Argentine Air Force. Two of those Typhoon fighters are also kept in perpetual quick reaction alert status. Meaning that they're always loaded up with fuel and weapons with pilots on standby. They can be airborne and ready to fight anytime, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, within just 15 minutes of the notice being given. An extremely resource-intensive state that makes RAF Mount Pleasant one of only three British military bases worldwide to actually do it. Unlike in 1982, when Argentina invaded and the British had zero combat aircraft present to stop them, any invasion attempt today would have to immediately deal with these highly capable and modern fighters. The UK also maintains aerial refueler tankers and heavy transport aircraft on the islands, as well. Along with a permanently deployed battery of Sky Sabres. The UK's own land- based surface-to-air missile defense system that can engage enemy fighters, missiles, and drones, alike. Meaning that even if enemy aircraft were somehow able to circumvent the fighters, they'd still have to deal with the islands' anti-air systems, which also didn't exist at all in 1982. The British also maintain a permanently deployed offshore patrol vessel from the Royal Navy on the islands now, as well. Along with a permanently deployed British Army garrison with rotating infantry and support units. All told, the British military presence on the islands these days usually numbers as many as 1,700 personnel at any given time, which is about half of the civilian population on the islands and more than 20 times as many military personnel as they kept on the islands prior to Argentina's 1982 invasion. And then there's also still the British military's base further back at RAF Ascension, too, which enables the Royal Air Force to have a convenient refueling and rearmament base about halfway between the Falklands and the British mainland. All of this is, of course, very expensive for the British military to maintain, however. In addition to the constant blood that Britain paid during the 1982 war, it also cost the British government an estimated 2. 8 billion pounds at the time to fight it, equivalent to nearly 10 billion pounds in today's value. And in order to continue their current levels of military defense on the Falklands, the UK spends around 150 million pounds every single year when factoring in both the direct costs of the garrison on the islands and all of the wider supporting costs involving airbridge flights and naval patrols. This means that every year, the UK spends roughly 42,000 pounds on the defense of the Falklands per resident of the islands, which is also equivalent to roughly 55% of the GDP of the Falklands that is perpetually spent on defense every single year as well. If the Falklands were their own independent country, they would have by far the highest ratio of military spending in the world as a percentage of GDP, eclipsing even Ukraine's current military spending, which only hovers around 40% of its GDP as it is dealing with a years-long active full-scale invasion. Britain has maintained this high level of defense and military spending on the Falklands for decades ever since the 1982 war, which many have argued has successfully deterred Argentina from ever attempting another attack on the islands. But many others have argued that the justification for continuing to do so has declined more and more as the threat posed to the islands by Argentina has grown weaker and weaker as the Argentine economy has declined. Argentina has basically been trapped in a perpetual economic crisis since the 1980s and its war-fighting capabilities have significantly deteriorated since

the 1982 invasion as well. Argentina's military spending as a percentage of GDP crashed from a high of between 3. 5 and 4. 7% of GDP leading up to the 1982 invasion to less than 1% of GDP by the early 2000s and managed to decline even further to as low as 0. 5% of GDP by the early 2020s. And 90% of that budget by that point was simply being used to pay out salaries and pensions with virtually nothing left over at all to maintain or acquire equipment. Some military analysts have suggested that Argentina might have had literally zero operationally combat-ready fighters in their air force by the time of the 2000s, let alone any credible amphibious and naval capabilities that would be required to invade the Falklands Malvinas again. By the 2020s, Argentina maintained the lowest military spending on the entire South American continent as a percentage of GDP and this time, were they to ever attempt another invasion, they would have to commit substantially more forces to it than they did back in 1982. Pulling off another successful surprise invasion of the islands like they did back then today would be practically impossible. Britain would see it coming from far away and would have adequate time to prepare for it with rapid aerial reinforcements. In order to maintain a three-to-one advantage in manpower that's considered the bare minimum balance of forces for an attacker, the Argentines would have to commit a minimum of 6,000 troops to the initial amphibious invasion force today. A huge army that would be nearly 10 times the number of forces that they committed to the initial phase of the 1982 invasion. And they would have to do all of this with limited amphibious transport and under almost certain British aerial and naval supremacy as well. Simply put, invading the islands again anytime soon is not a viable option that Argentina can take. After coming into power at the tail end of 2023, Javier Milei is slowly shifting Argentina's military capabilities into a more powerful direction, but it will still take years before the country is even moderately more capable. Milei's stated objective is to quadruple Argentina's military spending from 0. 5% of GDP when he assumed office to 2% of GDP by 2032. And to transform it back into an actually competent military force again in the process. In 2024, he agreed to purchase 24 used F-16 fighter jets from Denmark for a price of 300 million dollars, 40 million dollars of which was provided by the United States, and the first deliveries of which started to be made in early 2026. These F-16s will be armed with Raytheon produced medium-range air-to-air missiles as part of a nearly 1 billion dollar arms package that was recently inked with the US, which will significantly improve the Argentine Air Force's capabilities. But these older F-16s are still going to be less capable than the more advanced Eurofighter Typhoons that the UK maintains on the Falklands Malvinas, and they'll do nothing to actually help with transporting the thousands of soldiers across the ocean to the islands that the Argentines would still require to have a chance at another invasion attempt. Argentina will likely not possess the military capability to credibly threaten the islands again, at least for another decade and probably for even longer than that. But, that doesn't mean that they won't have the means to threaten them diplomatically instead. Unlike in the 1980s, however, the Falklands-Malvinas are dramatically more important to whoever controls them today because since the war, a mother lode of oil has been discovered within the waters around the islands in the Sea Lion oil field about 220 km north of them, which was only discovered fairly recently in 2010. As of 2025, it's believed that this oil field could contain as much as 1. 2 billion barrels of oil according to the company that's about to start production in it, which is more oil than what's currently believed to be left in the North Sea. At current inflated market values in the oil market because of the Iran war, the value of all that oil is hovering around 125 billion dollars. Production in the field, long under development for years now, is finally scheduled to begin next year in 2027. And once it's going, it's projected to provide the 3,600 Falkland Islanders with 5. 6 billion pounds worth of royalties that'll be paid out over 30 years, which will theoretically make every one of the Falkland Islanders today millionaires. It will dramatically boost the islands' economy and will provide as much as 10% of the entire UK's current rate of oil consumption for decades. All of this is, of course, to the staunch opposition of Argentina, who considers the oil to be theirs just like they do the islands, and who considers

all of these current oil operations here to be illegal. Britain ultimately has a much stronger incentive to defend their position on the islands now because of this oil factor, while Argentina has an even stronger incentive to be assertive towards their own claim for the same reason. Moreover, the islands are also the central link to Argentina's other territorial disputes with Britain in the South Atlantic in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and also in Antarctica, which might contain further untold volumes of oil for the taking after the current Antarctic treaty expires in 2048. Now, there are three primary reasons why the dispute over these islands is suddenly coming to a head now in the 2020s. One, of course, is this new oil factor, which has made the islands dramatically more economically relevant than they ever were before in the past with tens of billions of dollars on the line now. The second is the fraying relationship between the UK and the US over the fallout of the Iran war and Trump's ambitions to annex Greenland. And Trump's personally much closer relationship with Javier Milei instead. And the third is the potential precedent that may have also recently been set by the UK's agreement in 2024 to hand over the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius. In short, all of Mauritius used to be a British colony, but the British administratively carved out a separate colony from Mauritius out of the Chagos Islands before they granted Mauritius their independence. And they also expelled the entire population of the Chagos Islands in order to make way for the important joint UK-US military base at Diego Garcia. Then, after Mauritius gained their independence, the British continued to hang on to the Chagos Islands as their own colony. And Mauritius continually disputed this and claimed the Chagos Islands as their own territory for decades, which the British consistently ignored. The case was eventually taken to the International Court of Justice in 2017, which ruled against the UK in 2019 and demanded that the UK return the islands back to Mauritius again. Under mounting international pressure that followed that ruling, especially after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which made the British position in the Chagos Islands look pretty hypocritical, Britain finally entered into negotiations with Mauritius over the issue, and a couple years later in 2024, agreed to return the islands back to them in order to comply with international law. But, similar to the deal they came up with Hong Kong a century before, they also carved out a lease back agreement covering the all-important military base at Diego Garcia, in which Mauritius will lease Diego Garcia back to the UK for a lengthy of 99 years, so that they can maintain the base there for at least several more generations. However, doing this has also set a new precedent concerning the Falklands-Malvinas Islands in the eyes of Argentina and Javier Milei, who himself has openly claimed that Britain's decision to return the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius proves that one day they could be forced into giving the Falklands-Malvinas to Argentina as well. In many ways, the situations between the Chagos Islands and the Falklands-Malvinas Islands are very different though. For one, Britain never fought a war over the Chagos Islands and paid hundreds of lives and billions of pounds to defend them like they did with the Falklands. Argentina cites the cases of Britain's return of Hong Kong to China and the Chagos Islands to Mauritius as precedents, but Britain fundamentally disagrees with this take. The British position on the Falklands-Malvinas dispute is that except for the two months in 1982 when Argentina invaded and occupied the islands, they have continually and peacefully been administered and governed by the British since 1833 for nearly two centuries now. They cite that the UK has claimed and settled the islands as early as 1765 before Argentina even existed as a country, that they didn't abandon their claim to the islands in 1774 when they abandoned their early initial settlement there, and that there were no indigenous peoples of the islands who were displaced or massacred as in other colonial projects. And then after the British returned back to the islands again in 1833, they expelled the Argentine military presence that was there, but allowed the Argentine civilian residents to remain. And then most of them chose to do so, and that these only numbered a few dozen people anyway. The UK therefore asserts that today, the 3,600 or so civilian residents on the Falkland Islands who are British citizens are also the islands' indigenous people, and that they have a fundamental right to self-determination guaranteed by the UN Charter, which has been reinforced by a referendum on sovereignty in the islands that they hosted in 2013, in which an overwhelming 99. 8% of the vote on a turnout of 92% of eligible voters all chose to remain British. Literally everyone but three

people who took part in that referendum voted to remain British. And one of those three people said that he voted against it simply because he felt that a true 100% vote would have looked too suspicious. Argentina, meanwhile, continues to base their own claim to the islands on their belief that they legally inherited Spain's claim to the islands upon their independence in 1816. And their argument that the British effectively abandoned their claim to the islands after they spent nearly six decades without any physical presence on them between 1774 and 1833. Argentina claims that in addition to their inheritance from Spain, they acquired sovereignty over the islands when they first claimed them in 1820, when they were uninhabited, which was confirmed by Argentina's initial settlement and presence on the islands that they established between 1826 and 1833. Regardless of how small and fledgling that settlement and presence was. Argentina further argues that Britain's return and takeover of the islands and their takeover of the Argentine settlement in 1833 was an act of force that was protested against, that was illegal under international law, and that Britain has continued to illegally occupy the islands and refused to entertain any and all negotiations for nearly two centuries ever since. Well, they also claim that Britain expelled all of the Argentine civilians from the islands in 1833 as well. Argentina therefore argues that Britain's claim of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders is not legitimate because Argentina claims that they are a transplanted population of British character and nationality who were brought in as settlers or occupiers of rightfully Argentine land. Javier Milei has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of deploying military force to settle the Falklands-Malvinas issue again. And he has stated that his hope is that it will be negotiated and settled through diplomacy over the course of decades. Most of the Western discourse that I've read about this conflict online seems to overwhelmingly back the British point of view on the islands and considers the Argentine position to be ridiculous or even cartoonish. But this sentiment betrays the fact that most of the world outside of the West actually supports the Argentine position. As I mentioned before, every single country in Latin America explicitly supports the Argentine claim to the islands. As do both China and Russia, who are permanent members of the UN Security Council. India, who is the world's most populous country, and ironically, even Britain's fellow European countries, Spain and Ireland. And most recently, also Israel, who formally recognized Argentina's claim to the islands in 2025 after Javier Milei indicated his intention to relocate Argentina's embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The only other countries in the world who have expressed their support for the British position on the islands are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all Anglosphere countries who are close to Britain politically and culturally, along with Malaysia, Turkey, Sierra Leone, and Taiwan, which itself lacks significant international recognition. For now, the United States, along with most of the rest of the world, continues to maintain the officially neutral position on this dispute that it has always maintained in its attempt to balance between two countries that it has both historically considered to be allies. If Trump or another president ultimately leads the US to tilt this balance and formally side with Argentina, however, the biggest consequence isn't likely to be militaristic, but diplomatic, because Britain will become increasingly diplomatically isolated on this issue, and with the exception of Canada, will face almost complete unity in the Western Hemisphere opposed to their continued presence on the islands. Three out of five of the permanent UN Security Council members will have taken firm stances against them. And if Argentina pushes for diplomatic support or intervention at the UN to try and force the UK to enter into the bilateral negotiations they have resisted for centuries, the US may stand aside or even actively support it. It's also likely that if the US begins to recognize Argentina's claim to the islands, other US-aligned countries elsewhere in the world would likely follow suit, which could eventually begin putting unbearable diplomatic pressure on the UK to at least engage Argentina in negotiations. Figuring out the geopolitical dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas will likely be as difficult going forward as it's already been for decades, but something that is very much figured out, on the other hand, is what you should watch next or at least put on your list. And that's The China That She Grew Up In, A Grand Theory of Xi which is a Nebula exclusive, which means that it exists only on the streaming service that myself and a whole bunch of other creators put together called Nebula. Created by my friend PolyMatter

this documentary explores the dramatic rise to power of Xi Jinping. From sleeping on the floor of a cave to leading one of the two global superpowers of the 21st century, it's an incredible story that is well worth your time and will help you understand even more about the modern world we live in. Then there are also my own projects on Nebula like Mad Kings, a show that explores the darker histories of some of modern history's other most well-known dictators, including other recent historical figures who clashed with the Western world like Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and Iraq's Uday Hussein. Along with episodes covering the reigns of North Korea's Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, that explore how they were actually able to avoid a US intervention. And then there's also my other Nebula series called Modern Conflicts, which explores modern wars, battles, and conflicts at a level of depth and detail that would never work out on YouTube without triggering this site's demonetization and age restriction policies. With episodes you can watch covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7th, the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria, and Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip that all explain the crucial backstory information you need to understand what's currently happening in the Middle East right now. These are my own projects, but there's also just so much good stuff on Nebula from other creators right now that you can also watch, too. There's Day Pass hosted by Jason from Not Just Bikes, that explores the world through the lens of public transit down on the ground. If you wondered whatever happened to Lindsay Ellis, she's been making her usual documentaries on Nebula for years now instead of YouTube. There's Patrick Willems' latest short film The Dinner Plan, featuring big names like Griffin Newman and Zack Cherry. There's Abolish Everything, our new comedy debate premise recorded live in New York. Scav, a docu-series produced by the Wendover Productions and Jetlag folks tracing the incredible drama and unfoldings of the world's largest annual scavenger hunt hosted at the University of Chicago, and Oldest and Newest Places by Joe Scott, a full-length documentary exploring the oldest and newest rocks on the planet and what it takes to visit them. I can honestly keep going and going, but just believe me when I say that with every month that goes by, the Nebula catalog keeps getting deeper, making becoming a subscriber even better. But, we also need you to help keep this whole cycle going. We have a great deal running right now that when you use my link at nebula. tv/reallifelore or by scanning the QR code here on your screen or clicking the button, you'll get a whole 50% off of an annual Nebula subscription, which will bring the cost for you down to just $30 for the entire year or $2. 50 per month, a small fraction of the price of other streaming services. As other streamers keep raising their prices, this is an awesome deal. And if you want to sign up for a lifetime subscription to Nebula and then never deal with a monthly subscription ever again, you can get one for 40% off right now for $300 as well. So, give us a shot, and thank you so much for supporting not only my own channel, but all of the other creators who are building Nebula with their own awesome content as well. And as always, thank you so much for watching.