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

Russia and Argentina nurtured a flourishing relationship on Thursday as their presidents met in the Kremlin.
Vladimir Putin and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner signed a “strategic partnership” that included oil and gas deals, plans for Russian funding of a hydropower facility and an agreement for Russia to help build a nuclear power plant in the South American country.

Mrs Kirchner wants Britain out of the Falklands – or Malvinas as the Argentines call them – while Mr Putin sees London as a motor behind EU sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine crisis.

Russia's leader took a lengthy Latin American tour last year to demonstrate his global reach as Moscow's relations with the US and the EU reached a post-Cold War low.

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

I'm sure this is pure opportunism on Russia's behalf to try and stick one to the UK over the Ukraine debacle, but it is something of strategic concern to the UK none the less.

I just hope this serves as a wake up call to Whitehall that cutting our defences further (and dropping below the 2% GDP spend as per NATO) is simply no longer an option and we should now be building up our capabilities, not reducing them.

A lot of the very rich and powerful russians have a vested interest in the UK.. A lot live here, invest here and children are educated here..
I think it's safe to say we will be alright for the time being.
anyway you know how Russia works by now, just beating their chests again.

Nobody is bringing a war to Britain. It would be the beginning of the end for everyone. Just the usual political nonsense.

a reply to: stumason

Seeing that the USA has lost all credibility and most of it's control over the earth I am glad that a rising economic alternative would be willing to welcome them . I guess I am biased and would like to see all economic hit men out of business . The times they are a changing .:>)

I just hope this serves as a wake up call to Whitehall that cutting our defences further (and dropping below the 2% GDP spend as per NATO) is simply no longer an option and we should now be building up our capabilities, not reducing them.

Are you shilling for NATO .? I think it's a little to late to catch up to the diplomatic approach that Russia has embarked on with US $$ in the bank . Lets see ,mmmm because Russia is engaging in economic diplomacy NATO needs for all members to get their 2% GDP into the hawks bank account or else .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: stumason

Seeing that the USA has lost all credibility and most of it's control over the earth I am glad that a rising economic alternative would be willing to welcome them . I guess I am biased and would like to see all economic hit men out of business . The times they are a changing .:>)

Well, that made no sense...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Are you shilling for NATO .? I think it's a little to late to catch up to the diplomatic approach that Russia has embarked on with US $$ in the bank . Lets see ,mmmm because Russia is engaging in economic diplomacy NATO needs for all members to get their 2% GDP into the hawks bank account or else .

Shilling for NATO? Nope, just wanting our defence to be adequate. As it stands, it would be a tall order to protect the Islands from a determined enemy and even more so to retake them.

Anyway, it has already been discussed in Government circles that along with shoring up Defence spending, they also must spend more at the FCO as well. Moot point, really.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Britain is strategically untouchable....

No, it isn't. When we had a much larger Army, Navy and Air Force that didn't stop Argentina having a pop then. What's so different now that makes us "untouchable"?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Your like a paranoid schizophrenic...

Wow - not only trivialising a serious mental condition, but attributing it to me because I am concerned for our national defence?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Cut welfare on one hand and increase military spending on the other...

Not quite sure what relevance one has to the other. Welfare spending in the UK accounts for over half of all Government spending and needs to be reigned in, whereas Military spending accounts for 5%. The two are not even comparable.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
If you like war games so much f off to Syria and find out what the consequences of failed diplomacy truly feel like...

Such aggression - what did I ever do to you? And why talk about Syria - that's got sod all to do with the UK. Are you suggesting that if the UK spent more on the FCO, then the Syria war wouldn't have happened? Don't be an idiot.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Nobody is bringing a war to Britain. It would be the beginning of the end for everyone. Just the usual political nonsense.

Yup, if you read my OP, you'll see that is what I had said:

I'm sure this is pure opportunism on Russia's behalf to try and stick one to the UK over the Ukraine debacle,

Basically, Russia is using the Falklands "issue" to stick the boot in to a Western nation, without really committing to anything. They're just taking advantage.

a reply to: stumason

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

a reply to: Xcathdra

No, they do not.

We still have enough firepower to ensure that would never happen.

We still (and i know a lot of you are going to argue with me over this) have the best tech in the world to make up for our shortfall in numbers.

Argentina only managed what they did in the last conflict thanks to the French help they received, Thatcher (as much as I hate the sordid wench) made sure that was taken care of.

a reply to: stumason

Stu, I am anti-nuclear, and war, as you probably know...but...losing Trident would be our biggest mistake. I fully agree with you that our military spending needs to be at least that 2% if not more.

We, as a country, are still world leader is military hardware, even the USA falls behind in tech, but we don't have the budget to put it to any use.

With all that is going on in the world, we cannot afford to slip behind, especially as we are seen as major player on the world scene.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: stumason

Seeing that the USA has lost all credibility and most of it's control over the earth I am glad that a rising economic alternative would be willing to welcome them . I guess I am biased and would like to see all economic hit men out of business . The times they are a changing .:>)

Well, that made no sense...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Are you shilling for NATO .? I think it's a little to late to catch up to the diplomatic approach that Russia has embarked on with US $$ in the bank . Lets see ,mmmm because Russia is engaging in economic diplomacy NATO needs for all members to get their 2% GDP into the hawks bank account or else .

Shilling for NATO? Nope, just wanting our defence to be adequate. As it stands, it would be a tall order to protect the Islands from a determined enemy and even more so to retake them.

Anyway, it has already been discussed in Government circles that along with shoring up Defence spending, they also must spend more at the FCO as well. Moot point, really.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Britain is strategically untouchable....

No, it isn't. When we had a much larger Army, Navy and Air Force that didn't stop Argentina having a pop then. What's so different now that makes us "untouchable"?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Your like a paranoid schizophrenic...

Wow - not only trivialising a serious mental condition, but attributing it to me because I am concerned for our national defence?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
Cut welfare on one hand and increase military spending on the other...

Not quite sure what relevance one has to the other. Welfare spending in the UK accounts for over half of all Government spending and needs to be reigned in, whereas Military spending accounts for 5%. The two are not even comparable.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
If you like war games so much f off to Syria and find out what the consequences of failed diplomacy truly feel like...

Such aggression - what did I ever do to you? And why talk about Syria - that's got sod all to do with the UK. Are you suggesting that if the UK spent more on the FCO, then the Syria war wouldn't have happened? Don't be an idiot.

This is probably so OT, and inappropriate, but this exchange gave me such a good laugh. And Stu, you handled it so well! After seeing it, I'm actually surprised you responded to it. But I'm glad you did, for some reason or other, it's cheered me up. Pardon the intrusion. I should go to bed.

a reply to: stumason

Argentina should renounce any claim and concentrate on internal problems.
Hopefully nuclear weapons are not part of a Kremlin deal.

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: stumason

Argentina should renounce any claim and concentrate on internal problems.
Hopefully nuclear weapons are not part of a Kremlin deal.

It's illegal under the non proliferation laws. Britain can have them but the Argies can't!

It's irrelevant anyway, the UK would never use them even if the Bennies took the Falkland Islands again, and they wouldn't use them to threaten Argentina either.

I can't help thinking that linking anything the Argies do with a threat to Britain is intended to sell news on the basis of national pride, it's not like the UK foreign policy is to keep Argentina broke so they can never threaten the FI again, we have to rely on International Law.

a reply to: woogleuk

Defo - I'm not exactly "pro-War" but as the old adage goes, the wise man who wants peace prepares for war.

And you're right, when it comes down to it, only the Yanks have an edge in tech and then it is restricted solely to aircraft. When it comes to land or naval systems, the UK leads the pack. We just don't spend enough to take advantage of it.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Cheers I do try to remain "calm and collected" most of the time, but I am glad it gave you a chuckle too!

a reply to: EA006

They should, but they won't, it's part of their constitution apparently! And no, nuclear weapon transfer is against international law and despite Russia's tendency to ignore that of late, arming a South American country with nukes would piss more than just the UK off.

a reply to: Misterlondon these rich Russians with you defe¢ate in one field does not sit down because they blue noble blood, they robbed Russia in the 1990s, the only thing they have left in my city huge north youtu.be... cemetery , perm can easily get lost and a special bus deliver relatives . they went to the USA to England, Israel and their plans to make global Cemetery

a reply to: Forensick

There is nothing stopping the Argentinians from having nuclear weapons.

Don't keep calm and don't carry on, Oil is the reason why the world is in the shape that it is in. I hope the U.S. gets off oil as soon as possible, I hope the queen's back gives out.

So nice try, but the era of oil is over, you can "cuddle" over oil tea and whatever they eat in Argentina or Russia but there isn't enough oil for everyone.

So unless you are are going to start producing oil at ever higher rates eventually we will have to get off of it. So stop playing god and let's get on with it.

What are the "power elite" around the world going to do, hmm, start more wars, what try to reduce the population even more? Why not try to do something productive for a change, eh?

As was said in Glengary Glenross, you are hear to help us, not to F-ck us up, you company man, you fairy.

originally posted by: woogleuk

We still (and i know a lot of you are going to argue with me over this) have the best tech in the world to make up for our shortfall in numbers.

We lost the edge in the late 70's to those dam yanks in aircraft tec We seem to have gutted our air industry and gone to buying off the USA when 40 years ago it was the other way round.

Our ships on the other hand I believe the USN have even admitted our subs and destroyers have a edge even on them, but they win hands down on carriers. Still our ships may be better but the USA has 20x more!

Anyway I still think we should have kept with the original plan of 3 carriers and 12 Type 45's.

And the poor RAF has been gutted badly. We should have at least twice as many active fighters!

Its air power and Naval forces that will defend us.It always has been Even if they cut our army to 50,000 its matters little to me as boots on the ground in large numbers are only really useful for invasions (things we should not be doing). But our navy and Air force should be kept as strong as our economy allows. Enemy troops are useless if they can get landing ships close to us without being sunk. A army of 1 million men is useless if they have drowned

The UK has the 5th biggest defence budget in the work and you want to spend more? The problem with the UK armed forces isn't lack of budget. It is spending money on the wrong things (like nuclear armed submarines that have no military utility) and pointless overseas adventures that achieve nothing other than bolster politicians ego's that they get to sit at the table with the big boys.

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...