Cristina Kirchner and Vladimir Putin Cuddle Up Over Oil – and Bitter Feelings for Britain

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: crazyewok

It was actually naval tech I was thinking about. Specifically the type-45's.

I fully agree, that as an island nation, we do need to focus more spending on the RAF and navy, but it seems that our leaders feel we need more soldiers to fight in other countries, rather than boost defense of our home soil.

Anyway, I'm sure we still have a squadron of Spitfires lurking around somewhere, so all is good...

Thats the thing it does seem to focus on intentional intervention

We should cut our projection force spending ( except when it comes to the Falklands) and put that money into better defenses.

We have bases in the pacific, we have Diego Garcia and we have the huge Cyprus base? Why? We don't hold any colonies in there area any more? They are only there so we can bomb the ME and in the case of the pacific I don't even know why? Shut em and sell em to the yanks.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think the Pacific bases serve more useful long terms strategy goals, to be honest. For example, rather than offensive against South Asia nations, more defensive for Australia / New Zealand / former dependencies.

In blunt terms, there is no point being allied militarily to Australia if we can't actually get there to help defend her.

a reply to: stumason

Is it just me or are you starting to feel very..."meh" about Kirchner and Argentinian opposition to anything UK. I am definitely way beyond the point of "ok i get it, you don't like us".

As to Putin, he honestly actually don't think he cares one way or the other about Britain - i certainly don't think he hates us, it's more a genuine not think about us one way or the other......apart from to wind us up a little (think more Mourinho style press conference!).

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: crazyewok

I think the Pacific bases serve more useful long terms strategy goals, to be honest. For example, rather than offensive against South Asia nations, more defensive for Australia / New Zealand / former dependencies.

In blunt terms, there is no point being allied militarily to Australia if we can't actually get there to help defend her.

Australia have plenty of air fields themselves.

If they want our help then they can invite us to have a squadron or two stationed there.

Thats what the Americans do with us, we let them use our RAF bases here we don't use.

No point spending billions to upkeep bases when we can use there's.

Plus they should contribute to there own defenses too rather than just let us and the Americans do all the work, even if its just to upkeep the airbases we use.


Id fight and die for my Australian, American, Canadian and New Zealand brothers. But I expect them to at least build and upkeep the bases for there own defense.

a reply to: crazyewok

Thats a tad unfair mate. Australia is always there when we ask them to be and always has our backs. The very least we should be doing is providing the same offers / assistance where required. As stated, this isn't possible without bases in the area.

And we actually have various dependencies in the Pacific region, some many thousands of miles from Australia.

In point of fact, there is no need to mothball any of these bases - we simply need to meet spending requirements for NATO. In a modern society, a 2% spending commitment should be a simple requirement.

originally posted by: Flavian


Thats a tad unfair mate. Australia is always there when we ask them to be and always has our backs. The very least we should be doing is providing the same offers / assistance where required. As stated, this isn't possible without bases in the area.

Im not saying we should not have there backs.

If you read Im saying we should station our military in THERE bases rather than building and up keeping our own. Like the Americans do in the UK. They use our RAF bases.

Im all for helping them. But our allies should pick up some of the cost too!

originally posted by: Flavian

In point of fact, there is no need to mothball any of these bases -

Unless there is a valid defence reason I see no purpose.

originally posted by: Flavian

we simply need to meet spending requirements for NATO. In a modern society, a 2% spending commitment should be a simple requirement.

I agree with the 2% spending if not slightly more.

a reply to: stumason

Typical political posturing from Putin - nothing of substance to it whatsoever.

Personally I don't care if Russia helps Argentina build a new nuclear power plant, as long as its safe.
Same goes for a hydropower plant - don't see how any of that poses any kind of threat to UK national security and that of The Falklands.

I very much doubt Putin would support any new move by Argentina to obtain The Falklands, diplomatically or otherwise.

Bear in mind, Putin used the Crimean referendum and The Right to Self-Determination to justify the annexation of the Crimea by Russia.
That's the self same Right to Self-Determination that ensures that The Falklands will remain a British Overseas Territory.

As for Kirchner, she's desperate to boost her own image and standing on the international stage whilst deflecting away from the appalling state of the Argentinian economy.
She puts her own interests before those of the Argentinian people at every opportunity.

I genuinely feel sorry for the Argentinian people.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: stumason

Does argentina have the ability to attack, invade and hold the Falklands?

No. A few years ago they lost one of their only remaining Type 42 destroyers. It was tied to a jetty. Where it sank. In a port. On a weekend. Because there was no-one on it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Forensick
There is nothing stopping the Argentinians from having nuclear weapons.

Of course there isn't, but Argentina is just not into foreign affairs much, politicians are very corrupt and use foreign relationships for the benefit of their personal wealth or increase their political power internally.
I live in Argentina, and we made a deal with China, a pretty dangerous deal, we are letting them set up a military base in Patagonia, we as a nation get nothing, but our leaders sure got their pockets full.
China will surely throw a few bucks to the treasury too, since elections are nigh, and we are running out of cash.

a reply to: payta
As Argentina has agreed to the NNPT the in international law there is something to stop them acquiring nuclear weapons. However as the UK is about to breech it's part of the treaty again you could argue how much relevance this has.

a reply to: Freeborn

Hey Mr Freeborn! A very long long time no speak to. I totally agree 100% with you and your excellent grammar, very much needed here. The Woman and the oversized "GOBLIN" are tub thumpin.
I do agree our defence spending is way lower than it should be . Cut the overseas aid a tad, not the welfare budget as there are some real desperate people out here in the shires that are unable to work or have worked all their lives and not had the privilege of , privilege.

That was my 2 PENCE worth

Regards
GIT

a reply to: completenuttergit

Good to see you around mate.

Our national defence spending is lower than it should be - maybe if we targeted tax evasion and avoidance by the large corporations and obscenely high earners we could avoid the totally unnecessary austerity cuts and increase defence spending to a level it should be.

a reply to: Freeborn

Yes. again I totally concur. . Good grief this is spooky.. I doubt very much whether he would want to get too involved in her petty 3rd rate politics but, hey , weirder things in the world have happened.
.. I think..

Rgds
Git

a reply to: crazyewok

Crazy, the Yanks pay for the right to base in the UK and our dependencies, they don't get it for free!

As for the bases around the world, if they are another countries soil, that means that said country has a certain amount of influence when it comes to our own foreign policy. Just look at what Turkey does to the US and routinely prevent them from flying missions from bases in their country. By having your own bases, on your own "soil", you can't have the whims of another nation pulling your strings.

As for Cyprus specifically, they are actually Sovereign territory of the UK. We retained control over those parts of the island after the 1960 independence and they serve far more uses than just to "bomb the ME". They are important stop over for flights to the Far East, plus they are also a hub for intelligence gathering and communications.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: payta
As Argentina has agreed to the NNPT the in international law there is something to stop them acquiring nuclear weapons. However as the UK is about to breech it's part of the treaty again you could argue how much relevance this has.

Any country can pull out of the NNPT with six months notice - after that, they can do what they like but they can also expect a harsh reaction from the international community.

As for the UK - how is the UK about to breach the NNPT?

a reply to: Flavian

Oh yeah, it's just the latest in a long line of anti-UK rhetoric that will only entrench British views on the Falkland Islands and to be honest it's getting a bit dull....

But, with the current geo-political nonsense going on with Russia, I thought this was at least worthy of mention. It certainly seems like Putin took the opportunity to stir the pot against the UK simply because he could and he doesn't give a rat's arse about Argentina, really.

a reply to: stumason the treaty also has a disarmament clause (albeit a very vague one). However replacement of trident seems a pretty clear breech of the intentions of the treaty.

a reply to: ScepticScot

How so?

The missile is just the delivery system - it has naff all to do with the warheads.

EDIT: Also, the UK has been "disarming" for years. We used to maintain several hundred warheads, we're now down to less than 200. But to argue for disarmament when there are countries out there actively trying to arm themselves, along with other nations with many times more warheads than the UK has ever had, is foolish.

a reply to: stumason
The missile system has naff all to do with the warheads? How do you plan to use them then? Delivery by royal mail?
You will have to explain to me what makes the UK such a special flower that it should be allowed nuclear weapons when other nations aren't?

a reply to: ScepticScot

You tried to tie ambiguous UK NNPT "commitments" to the renewal of Trident - you tell me what the renewal of that system has to do with the warheads... The NNPT does not cover the delivery system at all.

As for "what makes the UK such a special flower that it should be allowed nuclear weapons when other nations aren't" - it is those countries themselves who willingly signed up to the NNPT that is stopping them. As I said earlier, even signatories to this Treaty can give notice, leave and start their own weapons program if they so wish.

originally posted by: crazyewok


We have bases in the pacific, we have Diego Garcia and we have the huge Cyprus base? Why? We don't hold any colonies in there area any more? They are only there so we can bomb the ME and in the case of the pacific I don't even know why? Shut em and sell em to the yanks.

Why do you want to close down Cyprus bases? They are part of Britain. The original owners the Turks got their part of the island back recently and the Greeks have their own part too. It is very useful for global reach having a hand in that area for Britain. Let's face it, it's where things are going on right now. Lots of business interests for UK companies in that neighbourhood, plus the ME is in turmoil, Britan has what is effectively an aircrft carrier in port all the time with Cyprus bases, after giving up Suez and Aden there is still a handy base in that region, why give it away when we don't have to?