In international politics, certain gestures can be interpreted as either pragmatism or capitulation . Javier Milei's government seems to be leaning dangerously toward the latter by insisting on "normal dialogue" with the United Kingdom, a country that, since 1833, has militarily occupied the Malvina Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and vast oceanic areas of the South Atlantic; Argentine territories recognized by the UN as objects of sovereignty dispute.
The revelations about bilateral defense talks—confirmed by the Argentine Ministry—are surprising not only for their content, but also for the tone with which the government tries to downplay them: "There's nothing secret, nothing military," they assert. But history and context prevent them from being treated as a mere routine diplomatic exchange.
The British veto and Argentine genuflection
The United Kingdom has maintained a de facto embargo on arms sales to Argentina since 1982, even blocking critical components for modernizing its armed forces . This veto, which persists despite Milei's efforts and pressure from the United States (a key ally of London), demonstrates that, for Great Britain, the Malvinas issue remains a red line.
It is striking that, while the Argentine government insists on its rapprochement with NATO—aspiring to become a "global partner" —the United Kingdom has not even relaxed its military veto. In other words: Argentina negotiates with those who humiliate it. The official argument that "Kirchnerism distanced the country from the West" doesn't explain why, after months of dialogue, London still won't budge.
The geopolitical game
Washington's interest in Argentina's access to NATO-compatible weapons is not altruistic: it seeks to prevent the country from turning to Russia or China. But the United Kingdom prioritizes its colonial occupation. Thus, while Milei embraces alignment with the West, London reminds him that, in the South Atlantic, its imperial interests take precedence over any gesture from Buenos Aires.
The purchase of F-16s from Denmark (without British components) confirms that Argentina must overcome artificial obstacles imposed by its occupier. Why, then, does the government insist on treating it as a reliable defense partner?
Sovereignty
Argentina's claim to the Malvinas is not a thing of the past: it's an open wound that London exploits to maintain its influence. Normalizing defense dialogues with the country that usurps the territory, while that same country maintains sanctions, is not only inconsistent; it's strategically naive.
If the real objective were to strengthen Argentina's position, diplomacy should, above all, demand the end of the British military veto as a gesture of goodwill. But Milei seems content with rhetorical crumbs, while the United Kingdom continues to strengthen its military presence on the islands.
Dialogue isn't bad, but doing so based on asymmetry and unilateral concessions is. Argentina cannot allow its claim to sovereignty to be diluted in a feigned normalization with someone who continues to deny it the right to defend itself.
