A report published early this morning by the news channel TN indicated that sources from theForeign Office in London rejected the version of an illegal crossing and assured that "the Embassy (British in Buenos Aires) notified in advance and through the appropriate channels" of the ship's route towards Punta Arenas.

If this claim were proven by the British government, it would radically change the focus of the analysis and open a cloud of confusion and contradictions that both the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom have an obligation to clarify publicly and urgently.

Given the magnitude of the events revealed and the lack of a unified official confirmation explaining the facts, the scenario is divided into two main hypotheses that demand accountability.

The two scenarios of an unconfirmed crisis

First, the veracity of the British position must be examined. London must conclusively demonstrate whether it transmitted this information and whether it did so in strict compliance with the Transitional System of Reciprocal Information and Consultation of the 1990 Madrid II Treaty . This post-war protocol rigorously obliges the armed forces of both countries to notify each other in advance of military movements in sensitive areas to prevent combat incidents. If British diplomacy failed to generate this formal alert through the established channels, this would constitute a blatant unilateral transgression intended to test Argentina's reaction.

The second scenario, and perhaps the most worrying for our sovereignty, points to the offices in Buenos Aires. If the Argentine Foreign Ministry did indeed receive the diplomatic notification from the British Embassy and decided to file it away in silence, or if it failed to immediately and appropriately forward it to the Southern Naval Area , we would be facing an internal failure of enormous proportions. Leaving the control forces on the ground—such as the radars and the Beechcraft B-200M "Cormorant" aircraft that had to search blindly for the intruding vessel—without the vital information handled in the offices in Buenos Aires exposes an unacceptable strategic vulnerability for National Security.

The Malvinas Question and the security of the continental shelf do not allow for journalistic speculation or diplomatic cover-ups. If the British warning existed and was silenced so as not to disrupt the docile alignment with the West promoted by the Casa Rosada, the country must know. If the warning was a fabrication by London to cover up the unilateral withdrawal of the Madrid II Treaty, the Government has an obligation to file an immediate international complaint.