Minister Luis Petri's administration has consummated a paradox of institutional gravity that transcends the merely unusual.

In an act that disregards the most basic principles of state, the National Defense University (UNDEF)—created by specific law to train professionals in the defense of sovereignty —extended a formal invitation to the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom —the power that exercises an illegal colonial occupation over the Malvina Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and vast maritime spaces in the Southwest Atlantic— for a joint conference on the conflict between Ukraine (or rather, NATO) and Russia . A matter strategically alien to direct national interests, it stands as the clearest emblem of a policy of alignment that, in practice, amounts to collaboration with the usurper.

This incident is not an isolated lapse, but rather the expression of a sequence of actions by which the national government, far from articulating protests against the growing British militarization in the South Atlantic, opts for active and structural complicity . The same institution designed to safeguard the national interest opens its doors wide to anyone deploying military power in illegally occupied Argentine territory, undermining from its foundations the principle of sovereignty it claims to defend.

The UNDEF was established

Created by Law 27.015, the UNDEF's express and unequivocal mission is to "educate in respect for and defense of the National Constitution and national sovereignty." Its purpose is to develop a strategic conscience and professional cadres capable of thinking and acting to protect the nation's irrevocable territorial and strategic interests.

That this very institution provides an academic platform, a space for legitimization, and a forum for exchange for the British Ministry of Defense is not a mere paradox; it constitutes an institutional abdication of the utmost gravity.

This is a collaboration that is being implemented at a time when the United Kingdom is not only maintaining, but also ostensibly intensifying its military deployment on the usurped archipelago , as detailed in its own Strategic Defense Review 2025 , and whose ministers, such as Luke Pollard , are publicly and unopposedly reaffirming their commitment to settler “self-determination,” a euphemism for perpetuating the colonial regime that the United Nations condemns.

This shameful episode fits into and reinforces a pattern of Milei's government behavior that prioritizes ingratiating himself with North Atlantic powers over the unwavering defense of national principles.

London's swift and celebrated acceptance of the credentials of the new British ambassador—whose previous career linked him to the oil company Equinor with interests in the Argentine continental shelf—coupled with the recurring visits by senior Whitehall officials, all framed within an official discourse that privileges the word "collaboration," create a political scenario where the historic demand for sovereignty is systematically emptied of content and practice.

The deliberate failure to issue formal protests against British provocations and the servile silence in the face of explicit international support, such as the recent declaration by the G77 and China, complete a picture of the progressive and methodical dismantling of the Malvinas cause as a state policy.

The conference's choice of theme, focusing on the war in Ukraine, far from being a neutral topic or one of abstract academic interest, reinforces the evidence of a doctrinal and strategic alignment.

The event is being promoted based on the United Kingdom's "accumulated experience" in training and supporting Ukrainian forces, which places Argentina, through its own Defense University, in the role of a student, absorbing the perspective and doctrine of a central NATO power.

This dynamic takes on an even more worrying strategic dimension when contextualized within President Javier Milei's expressed interest in the country achieving "partner" status in NATO , the military alliance of which the United Kingdom is a founding member and whose council decides by consensus, potentially involving future issues relating to the seized territories.

In this sense, collaboration within the UNDEF operates as an instrument for normalizing a relationship that, in practice, means subordinating national defense to the geopolitical interests of those occupying a portion of the national territory.

The message being sent, both to the citizens and to the international community, is alarmingly clear: sovereignty, in the concrete practice of the current government, has ceased to be a guiding and intangible principle and has become a negotiating variable, an unacceptable price to pay in pursuit of an erroneous international integration strategy that is deeply damaging to permanent interests.