Realpolitik and Las Malvinas: Argentina’s Moment for Triangular Diplomacy

Schwab, Bailey (2026) Realpolitik and Las Malvinas: Argentina’s Moment for Triangular Diplomacy. MKI ELEMZÉSEK. ISSN 2063-9244

Preview

Text Realpolitik-and-Las-Malvinas-Argentinas-Moment-for-Triangular-Diplomacy.pdf - Published Version Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

The Falkland/Malvinas Islands are once again in the news in both Argentina and the United Kingdom.[1] This is due to a leaked internal email from the Pentagon laying out measures Washington could take to punish its NATO allies, particularly Spain and the United Kingdom, for not having sufficiently supported its war against Iran, one of which was to reevaluate Washington’s support for Britain’s sovereignty claim over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands—over which Argentina also claims sovereignty.[2] This led to excited emotions on both sides of the Atlantic. Downing Street responded by reasserting that sovereignty over the islands “rests with the UK.”[3] Argentine President Javier Milei posted to his X account that “Las Malvinas fueron, son y siempre serán argentinas” (the Falklands were, are, and always will be Argentine).[4] While the memory of the 1982 war is still fresh in the public consciousnesses of both societies, the hype about another conflict is unrealistic and—of course—undesirable. It is undesirable because of the loss of life that it would entail. It is unrealistic because, notwithstanding Britain’s ability to defend the islands being in a much worse relative position compared to 1982, the only way that conflict would start is if Argentina invaded, which it does not have the necessary capability to do at the moment. While diplomacy is the preferred option for all parties, it should be stated that diplomacy is not an alternative to conflict between states; it is a complement to it. If done effectively, however, kinetic conflict can be avoided.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item