The Malvina Islands once again exposed a clear contradiction within the national government. This time, Vice President Victoria Villarruel politically and conceptually contradicted the position that President Javier Milei had publicly stated at the end of December, when, in statements to the British newspaper The Telegraph, he maintained that the archipelago “should return to Argentina through negotiation and when the islanders so desire.”

Villarruel 's response, released days after the leaked Pentagon cable that sparked tensions between the United States and the United Kingdom, left no room for interpretation: "The discussion about the sovereignty of our islands is between states," he stated, adding that the Malvina Islanders "are not part of the discussion." His most forceful statement came later: "If they feel British, they should return to their country."

This was not a difference of nuance. Villarruel directly contradicted the core of the presidential position. Where Milei introduced the islanders' "desire" as a condition for restitution, the Vice President flatly rejected it and replaced it with classic bilateral negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

The breaking point: “desires”

Milei's statements in late 2025 generated an immediate reaction from various political, legal, and social sectors. His assertion that the islands would be recovered "when the islanders so desire" was interpreted as an implicit validation of the principle of self-determination promoted by the United Kingdom, in open contradiction with Argentina's historical position.

The basis of the questioning is not rhetorical. UN Resolution 2065 recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute and establishes that it must be resolved through bilateral negotiations, taking into account the "interests" of the inhabitants, but not their "wishes." The Argentine Constitution, in its First Transitory Provision, follows the same line: it obliges respect for the islanders' way of life, but does not grant them decision-making power regarding sovereignty.

In this context, the introduction of “desire” as a decisive variable was interpreted as an unprecedented concession. Various analyses published between late December and early January warned that this formulation not only deviates from the constitutional mandate but could also be used by the United Kingdom as a diplomatic argument to strengthen its position.

Far from qualifying that approach, Villarruel rejects it entirely. His intervention does not correct the presidential position: it contradicts it. And he does so by unambiguously reaffirming Argentina's historical doctrine.

One official voice denies the other

The political gravity of the episode lies not only in the content of the statements, but also in their origin. This is not a matter of leaders from different political factions or an opposition debate: it is the Vice President of the Nation contradicting the position established by the President on a foreign policy issue.

The contrast is striking. Milei, in his interview with The Telegraph , sought to project an image compatible with a pragmatic negotiation with the United Kingdom, even within the framework of a broader agenda that includes trade ties and defense cooperation. Villarruel, on the other hand, rejects any approach that would give the islanders a leading role and hardens the sovereignty claim.

The context in which this new intervention occurred reinforces its impact. The international debate over the Malvina Islands was reignited after sectors of the United States hinted at a possible review of their historical stance of support for the United Kingdom. In this scenario, any Argentine position takes on greater significance.