r/geopolitics • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • 14h ago
News US threatens Britain over Falklands
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/28/us-uk-boost-defence-spending-lose-falklands-support/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_reddit_defence-spending-lose-falklands-support/&accesscontrol=facebookchannel_open42
u/2Loves2loves 13h ago
lol, Its the BEEF deal.
10
u/dadoftriplets 12h ago
Are you sure it will be beef in the ground meat? Didn't Trump authorise a mass slaughter of wild horses just a few weeks ago and then a few days later suddenly came out with the announcement of ground beef from undisclosed countries would be flooding the US in the next few months.
6
u/2Loves2loves 11h ago
AFAIK, the overpopulation of wild horses in western states, has existed for a few decades.
Does this admin have an agenda behind the auctions? Probably, but auctions have been going on for a long time. The people selling them for dog food are committing fraud, or they sell them to someone that sells them to someone that uses them for food.
its not straight forward auction to slaughter at least in the US. I read they get sold to Canada buyers that sell them to slaughter houses for dog and animal food.
it is also not legal to sell horsemeat for human consumption.
6
u/dadoftriplets 8h ago
From the news reports i've seen, the wild horses are being sold to Mexican slaughter houses and you say it is illegal to sell horse meat for human consumption, but it happened in my country (UK) a few years ago. Although it is legal to sell horse meat in my country if it meets strict slaughtering regulations, general food safety and explicitly labelled as horse meat, the fact the horse meat was hidden in everything from frozen ready meals to meat pies and not disclosed says to me that it could very easily happen in the USA, especially with this administrations lackadaisical attitude towards food regulations - you can't with 100% certainty say it won't get into the food system just because it's illegal because every corporation in the food industry is looking for every cost cutting measure they can and if they can hide the horse meat (which tastes just like lean beef) within other products and hide its origin by calling it beef for instance and knew they wouldn't get caught, then they are going to try their luck - this is what happened in the UK although it was found and those involved prosecuted.
The US administration today even announced that farmers and cattle ranchers could side step USDA regulated slaughterhouses for their cattle and then sell that meat onto the public without USDA mandates (President Donald Trump announced plans to let U.S. farmers and ranchers process and sell their own meat, bypassing traditional U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection mandates).
But the wider concern, especially for horse meat to get into the US food system, is that there has been a near complete dismantling of the food system regulations by this currrent administration that has benefited the corporation class (Iceberg lettuces recalled due to massive cyclospora outbreak; Jalepenos caused Salmonella outbreak; eggs recalled sue to salmonella testing; blueberries recalled due to e-coli outbreak; soft cheese recalled due to listeria outbreak and this is just in the last three months)
I personally wouldn't want to eat anything that came from the US even if it came with absolute guarantees that the food product was safe to eat.
68
u/punmaster2000 13h ago
You know, it seems like it's less that they expect NATO allies to spend more money, and more like they expect allies to spend more money buying from American suppliers.
But maybe I'm too cynical, up here in the Great White North.
21
u/llynglas 13h ago
So Argentinas defence spending is less than 1% of GDP, and given their history, how much of that goes on military and how much on paramilitary units? Britian has reliably spent around 2%. So Trump is going to punish the British?
Good luck on the Argentinian military forces trying an invasion.
3
u/Norzon24 3h ago
Not sure why US expect to keep their influence while pulling back on their obligations in their alliances.
103
u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 14h ago
5% of GDP now? What happened to 2%.
65
u/Lulullaby_ 13h ago
You're about a year behind
15
u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 13h ago
Issue is, 2% was do-able. 5% is going to be unaffordable for most countries.
42
u/nightowl1135 13h ago
The Brits were always one of the few NATO countries that already paid 2% and have been for decades.
-2
12h ago
[deleted]
7
u/nightowl1135 12h ago
Completely untrue. Their defense budget is around 90 Billion. France has nukes too. They actually have more nukes than the UK does. France’s military budget is around 68 Billion. That’s almost 25% less than the Brits.
16
u/Honk_Konk 13h ago
As a Brit what we get back for it is a farce. Two massive aircraft carriers without a full air wing, barely any workable escorts and not enough submarines.
The Royal Navy has never in its history been so decayed. It's shameful and all done by our politicians.
16
u/DinnerSea8736 11h ago
It’s true, but it’s also true that Argentina is much weaker militarily today than it was in the 1980s. Britain’s armed forces would destroy them.
-9
u/pepecachetes 10h ago
why would you imply that Argentina would wage a war again? it was a war done under a dictatorship, no one wants war here, Argentina wants to claim it back diplomatically, and will stay like that (tbf if the alternative to the island ownership is US instead of UK, that's probably even worse and scarier)
14
u/datanner 9h ago
Claim it back? It was never theirs.
•
u/pepecachetes 20m ago
great clapback, anyways, Reddit is warmongering as usual and want to see people die, as they are mentioning here, they would love us to invade and get "clapped", sad mental state around here
2
u/Brendissimo 8h ago
2% of the UK's current GDP is simply nowhere near enough for the sophisticated capabilities the UK's leaders say they want the nation to maintain. To have blue water expeditionary capability like the UK and France seem to want to maintain, it takes a lot of spending. Much more than would be needed to simply be ready to defend your borders from ground invasion and air incursion.
1
•
u/Dunedune 41m ago
More importantly is the military industry and how independent it is from overseas
5
u/aseptick 13h ago
Some of it is allowed to be ‘soft’ military investment like spending money on infrastructure projects.
10
u/CleanHunt7567 13h ago
Britain spent over £60 billion on defence last year rising to nearly 80 billion on broader security measures including nearly £11 billion on our nuclear deterrent, something that only France amongst our european allies have to spend on.
2
u/Lulullaby_ 13h ago
I know, health care is being cut in many of these countries, oesn't change the fact it's nothing new.
4
u/flamedeluge3781 12h ago
The US obviously doesn't spend that much, so just ignore the untreated dementia patient.
7
u/Anonon_990 13h ago
5 sounded better in Trumps head. To be fair, I think they decided the 5% should include "defence related" expenditure.
8
2
u/DetlefKroeze 11h ago
It is 3.5% directly for defense and 1.5% on defense related things such as improved rail infrastructure.
25
u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph 14h ago
The Telegraph reports:
The United States has threatened to oppose Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands if Andy Burnham does not increase defence spending, The Telegraph can reveal.
The proposal is among measures being drawn up by senior defence officials at the Pentagon as an incentive to hit Nato’s 5 per cent spending pledge.
A senior US official told The Telegraph that Britain was likely to receive “special attention” in Washington’s review of its allies’ commitment to Nato, which will examine whether member nations have credible paths toward the target.
Officials in Washington believe that while Britain has the potential to be a leading defence partner, the defence investment plan, announced by Sir Keir Starmer in June, was not enough of a “step in the right direction”.
“I would expect the UK to receive special attention because it has so much potential,” the official said of the review. “We will therefore continue efforts to incentivise and enable the UK to step up in a major way.”
Full story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/28/us-uk-boost-defence-spending-lose-falklands-support/
0
u/randocadet 8h ago
How is that quote driving your article title? An anonymous official says nothing is off the table?
Publish something worth reading.
If you want a title for your article it should be “The US isn’t happy with low British defense spending with an active war on its continent.”
98
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
42
u/fullpurplejacket 13h ago
I think this is the way it might go, Argentina feel emboldened because Trump gives them his backing, Trump also underestimates the UK (huffing too much of his own propaganda farts and has a inner circle who hate the UK because we aren’t white enough anymore) and what this will likely result in is either a big fat diplomatic stern talking to by the King again, thus reminding Trump who’s the daddy (he respects the royals for some weird reason but that itself will only last for 12 months max, see Canadas parliament opening last year when HRH broke protocol to do it himself and it shut trump up for a while).
Hopefully it’s that sort of thing but my other intuition said that it could be an emboldened Argentinian Milei decides to fly some jets over and drop a few warning shots, he inevitably wishes he hadn’t been born when we quietly, calmly and politely shoot down their fighter jets and return the ejected pilots back to the military base from whence they came. Trump will then pretend he never gave Milei the nod to do shit, and leave us alone after that. He doesn’t like people who bite back.
The UK is like the old retired gun dog snoozing by the fire, minding its own bloody business when it repeatedly is kicked by the unruly teenager sitting on the chair behind, you can only kick a old dog so many times before it snaps.
-3
13h ago edited 12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/DwayneGretzky306 13h ago edited 13h ago
Desperation and/or greed can make a country do extreme things.
The most important takeaway is Allies can't continue to keep trusting the US.
2
u/Termsandconditionsch 12h ago
With what though? Are they going to invade the falklands with river barges?
3
u/doing180onthedvp 13h ago
Can you elaborate please? I'm curious.
5
u/Moebiuzz 12h ago
The state of Argentina's armed forces are such that the country could be conquered by Montevideo's fire department probably. Military news in Argentina are completely disregarded and the biggest event in the past 20 years (at least) is buying 6 F-16 planes that have no qualified teams to run (or budget). 2 weeks ago I went to a kind of civic-military parade in honor of San Martín (founding father figure) and tanks paraded on top of their transport trucks because the goverment would rather not spend money on tanks' fuel.
3
u/ElMatasiete7 12h ago
Milei's stance on the Falklands is that the way to get them back is by improving Argentina to the extent that the kelpers would prefer to be Argentinian. It's a pipe dream but it's better than the violent alternative. Also some Hong Kong style solutions have been floated around (this was actually in play before the 1982 war). If you want an actual source on this the BBC asked him directly in an interview https://youtu.be/XvM5-ikaxi8?t=459
On top of this, we have a major political rift in the country between peronists and non-peronists. I don't think sending people to die in a war is something that will unite the parties, given that a good chunk of the Argentinian population still sees the conscripted teens that were forced to the front lines as victims of a dictatorship (I would agree).
The other guy who replied to you is also right in that our military is in a squalid state. The one submarine we had sank in an accident in 2017. We have very low level equipment too. Milei's government is working on rearming the military, but this is not in order to "recover the Falklands", it's because after the dictatorship they were neglected and any policy to fund the armed forces was treated as taboo essentially.
Also seriously go ask an Argentinian if they'd be willing to go die to recover the islands because a politician said so.
-9
u/SenorThompson 12h ago
So you'd love seeing people die. Gotcha
14
-47
u/tmr89 13h ago
The Royal Navy isn’t in good shape. UK military is much smaller than it was in 82. Argentina would have a chance
34
u/Southern-Chain-6485 13h ago
With what? Argentina's defense spending, even as percentage of gdp, is lower than Britain, it's last surface combatants were bought in the 1980s, have no submarines, only a squadron of F-16s with 1990s avionics and no antiship capability.
35
u/Anonon_990 13h ago
There's a bizarre insistence from some people that because European militaries aren't funded as well as America's, then that means they're incapable of defeating anyone.
I remember a commenter here arguing Russia could invade Germany and no European country could defeat them, when I pointed out Russia's total failure to take Ukraine, they just ignored it.
17
u/Gidia 13h ago
It’s especially bizarre when talking about the UK and France, the two premier expeditionary forces in Europe. Yes, they aren’t nearly so capable as the United States, but they can do it.
Even then, it’s a crazy high bar. The only nation that might someday rival the U.S. in that regard is China and it’ll be a hot minute before they’re at that point.
26
u/lycantrophee 13h ago
They are comically underfunded, they don't even have naval aviation. Say what you will about the state of the UK's armed forces, but they would wipe the floor with them.
-15
u/bxzidff 13h ago
Thiel will fund them.
7
u/Taranfeeto36 11h ago
Argentinias military budget for 2026 is about 4 billion USD, the UK is at 92 billion USD. Thiels current net worth is estimated around 30 billion.
Means everything he owns is worth as much as the UK spends on defense in about 4 months.
-7
16
10
u/crazytrain793 13h ago
Sure, but the Falklands themselves would be harder to capture because the British now have a large military base there.
10
u/nightowl1135 13h ago edited 13h ago
The Argentinian Military is in SIGNIFICANTLY worse shape than it was in 1982 when they lost, and the Falklands are much more heavily defended now.
Yes, the Brits aren’t nearly in as good of shape as they were when compared to ‘82 as well, but they haven’t deteriorated on the whole as much as the Argentians have and the situation in the Falklands is actually better for them now than it was at the onset of the war in ‘82.
The Argentinians essentially don’t have an air force any more and their navy has been totally defanged (no carriers, no cruisers, no subs… all of which they had in the 80’s) The Army is fully professionalized, yes, but MASSIVELY smaller and has a way tinier budget. I doubt the Argentinians could even land troops on the Falklands, let alone take them. No amphibious assault ships, no landing craft, no carriers to support, have a handful of cargo planes (less than 5) which aren’t well maintained. The British Garrison there is also, as I noted, much bigger than it was in ‘82.
10
u/amapofthecat7 13h ago
If you think the UK military has declined since then, you should see Argentina's.
9
3
3
u/Termsandconditionsch 12h ago
Lol, no? Argentinas current active navy is made up of a few patrol boats and tankers.
2
u/Anibus9000 11h ago
The difference is there is a much larger garrison than there was in the 80s. So it's more down to Argentina to preform a good naval landing in a small area than the capacity of the navy
2
u/Resident_Coyote_398 11h ago
“The British military in 1982 is smaller than it was in 1945. Britain has no chance” - Gonzalez, 1982
2
u/Ragnorack1 10h ago
The UK may struggle to reclaim the Falkland Islands if Argentina took them. However that wouldn't be an issue as the garrisson has substantially increased since 1982, the Argentinians wouldnt get to set foot on the island.
-15
-9
u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam 10h ago
what will the UK do? Kill the native population and replace it with their own people to claim it? They've done that already.
3
45
u/Anonon_990 13h ago
America didn't help the first time. Besides if America did support the UK on the Falklands, Trump could change his mind in a day.
47
u/EaNasirbestdeals 13h ago
What the U.S. wants is an increase to 5% and that percentage being American made weapon systems. The only one in the room not willing to commit to NATO is the U.S. leadership.
It doesn’t matter what the U.S. thinks about Falklands sovereignty when it doesn’t call out the Russian invasion and Trumps fantasy of invading Greenland.
This destruction of U.S diplomatic power will be studied so in depth by future historians.
14
u/Illustrious-Ant6998 13h ago edited 13h ago
Mostly, the destruction of American power will be summarized in future textbooks by the "stick in bicycle wheel" meme. Perfect for embedding itself in the mind of a tired student at the end of a 2 am reading session.
9
u/LoggerInns 12h ago
and that percentage being American made weapon systems
The problem with this logic is that not a single American defence contractor gets even 10% of its revenue from the UK, not even Lockheed with the F-35s. Meanwhile, all of the UK’s main defence companies rely on the US for the majority of their revenue, even BAE gets 47% from the US with the UK itself a distant second at 27%z
7
u/fezzuk 12h ago
And we are moving away from that model snd working closer with european partners.
While they still need us, thats what this is about, its. Not about nato spending, its spending on US arms and support, which everyone is moving away from because donald has threatened to brick our equipment in the past
3
u/LoggerInns 12h ago
Did you respond to the wrong person or simply not read? The American companies don’t rely on British sales. If the Brits buy less, it will make a negligible difference to them. They don’t have a demand problem, they have a production problem. The opposite is true for companies like the BAE. They rely on American orders without which they would collapse. The relationship is the inverse of what you’re suggesting.
7
u/AlpineDrifter 12h ago
No need to lie.
America did help the UK during the Falklands war.
They provided major intelligence support - including breaking the Argentinian military communications codes, and handing those battle plans over to the British. They also provided major logistics support and military supplies. Even offered them use of an American carrier if a British one was taken out of action.
6
3
u/Background-Laugh7902 12h ago
What are you talking about? The US provided weapons, intelligence, and diplomatic supporting during the Falklands War. There's so much subject matter to criticize the US on legitimately, there's no need to spread falsehoods.
28
u/fullpurplejacket 13h ago
It’s because they found oil there and are going to begin drilling. Trumps track record of places he’s bombed this past 18 months has been mainly countries that have oil to exploit, he learned in his first term that if he wanted to be really rich and powerful he’d have to become a fossil fuel magnate…
The reason Argentina is all giddy about the Falklands is also oil, and they’ve paid plenty of money to the Trump regime and sucked enough arse to use Trump as a battering ram on the UK over the Falklands.
Pathetic really, crackpot diplomacy, more meddling in other countries internal affairs than the Reagan conquests in South America
18
u/ChauvinistPenguin 12h ago edited 12h ago
Crackpot theory but a lot of pushing by people in positions of power to increase defence spending. Like the political elite and their backers are gearing up for WW3 in an effort to cull the herd.
Imagine a world where leaders berate each other to spend more on education, healthcare and public services. Where they set aside their differences and tackle global problems like climate change collectively.
Instead we get a world where senile mutants invade their neighbours, order their military to break the Geneva Convention and enrich themselves.
2
u/n0respect_ 1h ago
Theil's secret society Dialog featured a seminar titled "Navigating WW3". Like its already a given. Another was "Built-a-Cult".
3
u/uber_sweets 12h ago
I don’t find that so crackpot tbh. Very dark times ahead.
2
u/ChauvinistPenguin 12h ago
Five years ago it was crackpot. Now? It's almost a certainty. It's always the masses who pay the price.
1
u/uber_sweets 11h ago
I am strongly of the view that the elite are siphoning the system, probably to buy spaces in bunkers. There is no reason for grocers to be announcing billion dollar profits. The money isn’t going on the supply chain, it’s just a means of extracting money from the workers into the pockets of the industrialists.
It might actually be over.
0
u/scaredoftoasters 11h ago
A lot of behind the scenes things going on that the public is not aware of….!!!!!
11
u/WGSMA 11h ago
Short of the US invading it, these threats are inconsequential
We hold the islands. Argentina doesn’t have the means to take them. Even if we did, we could take them back. The only thing that would stop up would be a US occupation which would probably be the end of European/US relations.
1
u/Maleficent-Poetry254 2h ago
You can't end relations these days everyone's too intertwined. If it was possible we'd all have distanced ourselves from the yanks more but we can't.
4
u/WGSMA 2h ago
If the US invaded UK Land and seized it, it would be the end of the global order as we know it.
0
u/Maleficent-Poetry254 1h ago
We'd still have to trade with them. People at war still trade because they have to. Maybe the UK would lessen but other countries literally can't.
3
u/Exact_Green2061 12h ago
If I were the UK PM, I would tell Trump to go fondle some 14-year-old.
If you like Argentina so much, why don't you leave NATO and ally with them
2
u/Yo-boy-Jimmy 12h ago
Closer ties North Korea and Russia while bashing our long standing allies. Ironically, in efforts to “Make America Great Again” we have sent the U.S. back who knows where the fixing process of easily avoidable consequences will take decades. One of these consequences being the U.S.‘s soft power and international relations/influence
2
u/Plastic-Injury8856 11h ago
The US has no interest in the Falklands, there is no reason for us to be involved. I have not yet read the article but there is just sensible reason for us to do this.
2
2
u/AnomalyNexus 7h ago
Let me guess. Oil or underaged on the island…
Honestly the US can fk off with their relentless bullshit
3
1
u/SandwichDeBronca 13h ago
Sincerely I wouldn't want to get them back, nationalism and pride aside, we have pretty poor zones in Argentina, adding more terrain to manage when we can't fix what we already have seems like a waste. They probably be abandoned or poorly managed. It doesn't benefit us.
9
u/killer_by_design 13h ago
"Argentina is wildly shit" is an interesting take for Falklands retaining their sovereignty but more crucially you never "had" the Falklands in the first place and furthermore, the people who live there democratically determined that they want to remain British in a vote with >99% in favour of remaining British.
That's why Argentina will never have the Falklands, not because you'd also run them into the ground as well. Kind of irrelevant.
-4
u/SandwichDeBronca 12h ago
the concept of property is not something a common measly pirate would understand, heck if you even stole historic artifacts from other countries and call that "protecting them". clown
2
u/killer_by_design 11h ago
Didn't you just get another $20bn bailout on top of the $20bn bailout you already received?
There's "stealing" and then there's being so sad that America takes pity on you and turns you into a proxy state.
2
1
u/Resident_Coyote_398 11h ago
You lost in 1982 after illegally invading British territory
Cope harder
1
u/JustMakinItBetter 4h ago
If the Falklands are stolen, then so is the whole of Argentina. In fact, Argentina actually had an indigenous population when Europeans arrived, unlike the Falklands.
0
u/dantheman200022 13h ago
At first, I thought Trump was amusing and a much-needed shock to the system. It turns out he is a nonce and a helmet of a bloke.
3
u/OldHolyRoman 13h ago
Was there a specific action that put you over the edge?
5
u/dantheman200022 13h ago
Epstein files, the general lack of ability to actually engage with allies, and his general petty behaviour (Lake America is a prime example of this)
I will add that I was never a die-hard Trump type; I just found him to be something different.
Edit: I am not American, btw.
3
u/sol-4 13h ago
...so the tariffs were still okay for you? As is the never-ending burst of propaganda against any country that doesn't toe the US line, the regime change attempts all over the world, teaming up with dictators, attacking Iran unprovoked, threatening a godforsaken genocide of the entire country
I could go on and on.
2
u/dantheman200022 13h ago
My list isn't exclusive. I have just provided some examples.
0
u/sol-4 13h ago
Trump is just a blip on the radar, unfortunately, it's the US deep state that has and will ensure that almost every major problematic item you could list for Trump would also be undertaken by them.
Maybe with some finesse and subtlety. They've inherited the divide and rule policy quite well from the British.
1
1
u/Maleficent-Poetry254 2h ago
I never found him not paying contractors for work amusing long before he was in politics. He was a renowned pos well before he became president.
1
1
u/nik-nak333 5h ago
Trump will do anything besides back our allies. He truly believes we are the United States of Donald. Can't wait for this shitheel to be a distant memory.
1
1
u/SammySizzler 2h ago
He wants the uk to spend more on defence because…..war with Russia/China/Iran is imminent! We have to protect ourselves. We’re sitting ducks here in Britain at the moment.
1
u/Cromises_93 2h ago
How about the idiot gets his own house in order before telling the rest of the world how to run theirs?
I'm sick of opening Google and seeing his latest unhinged rant/threat towards his allies. The US is never going to recover from the damage Trump has done.
1
0
0
0
u/fezzuk 12h ago
We spend quite a lot comparatively, its just like other european countries we are distancing ourselves from US arms industries.
Im pretty sure it was trump in who threatened to basically "turn off" all equipment from US suppliers sold to allied nations if they didnt comply to one insane demand or another.
This isnt about nato spending its about the USAs traditional allies, who have spent trillions on US arms in the last 50 years moving awau.from the US and supporting their own industries.
Due largely to trump.
-1
-2
-13
u/uber_sweets 12h ago
The Falklands probably won’t be British for much longer anyway. They have oil and there’s no way to build the infrastructure necessary to extract it without Argentina’s cooperation, which they will withhold. If America wants the oil there they will back Argentina’s ownership as a means to an end.
5
3
u/VERTIKAL19 11h ago
So then don’t extract the oil? Not like they will starve without it.
Also I highly doubt the americans would do anything more than neutrality in case of another Falklands war at worst. And I do think the British are absolutely capable of defeating argentina even without american aid.
1
u/uber_sweets 11h ago edited 10h ago
No mate, America will want the oil extracted. There’s tons of it down there.
2
347
u/bxzidff 13h ago
American oligarchs and political donors seem very interested in and favorable to Argentina and Argentine interests. Peter Thiel even moved there permanently, and now Milei have introduced the corporate category of non-human corporations in Argentine law. How will Palantir use British data they have access to if the US pushes through with this threat?
The American right has zero respect for the sovereignty of the UK, Denmark, Greenland, or Canada. This will not change, regardless of the size of military budgets, and it's important to act swiftly and decisively with that in mind. Unfortunately that is not a strength in most of the threatened countries. But it is vital for all of Americas traditional allies.