USAF base in Ushuaia

Navy, not Air Force AFAIK, but yes there are rumors. I highly doubt Argentina would ever have the political stomach for a largely autonomous U.S. installation like you'd find at Ramstein, Kadena, Pituffik (formerly Thule) or Camp Bondsteel. More likely an Argentine controlled base that hosts a smaller U.S. detachment for friendly relations and cooperation, similar to Incirlik, Lajes, or Sigonella.

Milei met with General Richardson (U.S. SOCOM) about a month ago, but Gustavo Melella (governor of Tierra del Fuego) refused to meet with the general and declared her "persona non grata" and an "ungrateful person," and the local political organization Multisectorial por los Derechos Humanos de Río Grande released a statement stating (translated):

"We repudiate the visit of the head of the United States Southern Command, Laura Richardson, to our country and to Tierra del Fuego in particular, while rejecting any kind of interference from the United States of America in the exploitation of our natural resources, security and relations with the rest of the world."

So...like anything else in Argentina, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


www.voanews.com

Analysts: Argentina F-16, naval base decisions halt China’s momentum

US gives Argentina $40M toward its F-16s purchase, first financing since 2003; Buenos Aires wants to be NATO global partner
www.voanews.com www.voanews.com

buenosairesherald.com

Argentina to increase 'strategic alliance' with United States, Milei vows in after-hours speech - Buenos Aires Herald

The president addressed the public early Friday morning during an unscheduled trip to Ushuaia to meet with a top US military official
buenosairesherald.com

orinocotribune.com

Milei Allows US to Construct Naval Base in Strategic Southernmost City of Argentina

The president of Argentina, Javier Milei, announced that the United States will construct an "integrated naval base" in Ushuaia, the southernmost city of Argentina, known as "the city at the end of the world." The city has an extreme geopolitical importance, as it is located where the Atlantic and t
orinocotribune.com orinocotribune.com

www.zona-militar.com

President Milei will oversee the Passex exercise with the US Navy from the aircraft carrier USS George Washington

In anticipation of the upcoming visit of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) of the United States Navy at the end of this month, President
www.zona-militar.com www.zona-militar.com

www.navy.mil

U.S. 4th Fleet Announces Southern Seas 2024 Deployment

MAYPORT, Fla. - The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) will deploy to the U.S. Southern Command area of operations over the next few months as part of U.S. Naval Forces
www.navy.mil
 
My question would be why?

Who are they going to fight down there, the penguins? What threat to the security of the USA could possibly exist in the far southern Atlantic?
 
Redpossum said:
My question would be why?

Who are they going to fight down there, the penguins? What threat to the security of the USA could possibly exist in the far southern Atlantic?
Click to expand...
They’re competing with China. China already has a “mystery” listening dish in the Neuquen province that was set up years ago
during Kristina's reign. It makes perfect sense to keep the Chinese incursions in the southern hemisphere in check.
 
Last edited:
China is / was interested in building a Naval base in Ushuaia.
That’s a crucial place because it could control the shipping going from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
 
Last edited:
Redpossum said:
My question would be why?

Who are they going to fight down there, the penguins? What threat to the security of the USA could possibly exist in the far southern Atlantic?
Click to expand...

I'll preface this by saying that despite being a U.S. Army veteran, I'm not trying to be a shill for the U.S. military with this response. Just trying to provide insight.

In a nutshell, the U.S. military has a presence in foreign countries for a variety of reasons, including ongoing historical conflicts (e.g. South Korea); past historical conflicts (e.g. Japan and Germany); counterterrorism operations (e.g. Djibouti); missile warning capability (e.g. Greenland); communications capability (e.g. Exmouth Australia); deterrence against Russia (e.g. Camp Kościuszko in Poland); deterrence against China (e.g. Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore); drug interdiction and transnational crime fighting (e.g. Honduras); marine safety (e.g. Netherlands); aerospace defense (e.g. Canada); cooperative security locations (e.g. Aruba and Curaçao); and that probably just scratches the surface.

According to Wikipedia, "The total number of foreign sites with installations and facilities that are either in active use and service, or that may be activated and operated by American military personnel and allies, is just over 1,000." Estimates vary based on the source, but the U.S. military is believed to have a "base" (could be anything from a small city to a small radar site) in approximately 80 countries, and a presence of some sort in probably twice that.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations)
(https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-...ek-mapping-the-global-u-s-military-bootprint/)
(https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/USCounterterrorismOperations)

The website "Today's Military" has a customizable map of some of the larger bases around the world, but the map omits a lot of the smaller cooperative security and counterrorism locations in Africa, South America, etc. You can filter by region and branch:

(https://www.todaysmilitary.com/ways-to-serve/bases-around-world)

Some foreign allies have a physical military presence in the United States as well, albeit to a significantly smaller degree, and nothing that would be considered a "base." Examples include German Armed Forces Command in Reston, Virginia; Singapore (integrated training in Idaho); Sheppard AFB in Texas (sole source of fighter pilot training for partner nations Belgium, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands and Norway); and Edwards AFB in California (UK/RAF testing and evaluation squadron). So sometimes it's not about threats or deterrence, but about friendly international cooperation and relations so that if major sh*t ever does hit the fan the US has as many friendly (or at least neutral) countries on its side as possible.

Back to Argentina, there are a variety of "official" reasons (along with probably a few hidden reasons) that the U.S. and Argentina have been increasing their partnerships of late, including:
The main U.S. concern in Latin America though is China, namely countering current Chinese influence in "authoritarian" countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua; and keeping China from establishing a larger foothold in the region. Prior to General Richardson's (U.S. SOUTHCOM) recent visit to Argentina, she presented a report to the U.S. Senate regarding China, which included the following statement:

“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) understands the importance of economics and the intertwined role of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in achieving its Chinese Dream — the PRC reclamation of China’s central role in world affairs. In Latin America and the Caribbean, USSOUTHCOM recognizes the opportunity to collaborate with our partners, build their capacity, and increase their resiliency to the pervasive challenges and threats they face. Conversely, the PRC is exploiting a fragile security environment and taking advantage of the region’s need for economic investment to gain influence and advance its malign agenda. The PRC knows that economic power is a prerequisite for global military power and it is imperative that we view the PRC’s economic activities, particularly in the Americas, as connected to their global political and military desires.”

Were the United States to ever just withdraw all presence from Latin America completely, or Europe completely, or Southeast Asia completely, or Antarctica and the Arctic completely, or the Middle East completely; the reach and influence of countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea would expand significantly, and China and Russia in particular haven't been shy about their desire to reclaim old stomping grounds. I think that many countries around the world aren't particularly fond of the vast reach of the U.S. military, but they know that the U.S. (for the most part) respects the sovereignty of its allies and doesn't have the desire to increase its territory or redraw its borders through invasion or force. Thus, the U.S. military's presence is welcomed (or at least tolerated) in many parts of the world, as the same can't be said about other global powers.

An example of this would be the recent military agreement between the U.S. and Palau (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...unding-for-pacifics-freely-associated-states/). The U.S. is able to safeguard a strategically important island by increasing its radar and missile defense capabilities, countering Chinese influence in the region, and improving its maritime efforts to protect global shipping lanes, stop illegal fishing, and intercept weapons smugglers. In return, Palau (which has no military and has a history of being colonized) receives U.S. defense guarantees and billions of dollars. Last year, Palau's president said U.S. help was necessary and welcomed to deter China’s “unwanted activities” around its coasts and stop China's "uninvited" and recurring violations of its territory. So for some smaller countries it's as simple as that - protection (and a lot of money) from an invited guest with established intentions, versus no protection and the risk of an uninvited guest forcefully deciding to stake claim to more territory.

We'll see what happens here in Argentina - Milei seems to be highly receptive and intent on building partnerships with the U.S. and increasing military cooperation (likely to curry as much favor and future economic interest from the West as possible). But I'm sure a fairly sizeable portion of Argentina's populace will see any U.S. military presence as another experiment in the U.S. "imperial laboratory" (https://jacobin.com/2023/03/greg-grandin-interview-us-policy-latin-america).
 
Last edited:
obiwanderkenobi said:
I'll preface this by saying that despite being a U.S. Army veteran, I'm not trying to be a shill for the U.S. military with this response. Just trying to provide insight.

In a nutshell, the U.S. military has a presence in foreign countries for a variety of reasons, including ongoing historical conflicts (e.g. South Korea); past historical conflicts (e.g. Japan and Germany); counterterrorism operations (e.g. Djibouti); missile warning capability (e.g. Greenland); communications capability (e.g. Exmouth Australia); deterrence against Russia (e.g. Camp Kościuszko in Poland); deterrence against China (e.g. Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore); drug interdiction and transnational crime fighting (e.g. Honduras); marine safety (e.g. Netherlands); aerospace defense (e.g. Canada); cooperative security locations (e.g. Aruba and Curaçao); and that probably just scratches the surface.

According to Wikipedia, "The total number of foreign sites with installations and facilities that are either in active use and service, or that may be activated and operated by American military personnel and allies, is just over 1,000." Estimates vary based on the source, but the U.S. military is believed to have a "base" (could be anything from a small city to a small radar site) in approximately 80 countries, and a presence of some sort in probably twice that.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations)
(https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-...ek-mapping-the-global-u-s-military-bootprint/)
(https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/USCounterterrorismOperations)

The website "Today's Military" has a customizable map of some of the larger bases around the world, but the map omits a lot of the smaller cooperative security and counterrorism locations in Africa, South America, etc. You can filter by region and branch:

(https://www.todaysmilitary.com/ways-to-serve/bases-around-world)

Some foreign allies have a physical military presence in the United States as well, albeit to a significantly smaller degree, and nothing that would be considered a "base." Examples include German Armed Forces Command in Reston, Virginia; Singapore (integrated training in Idaho); Sheppard AFB in Texas (sole source of fighter pilot training for partner nations Belgium, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands and Norway); and Edwards AFB in California (UK/RAF testing and evaluation squadron). So sometimes it's not about threats or deterrence, but about friendly international cooperation and relations so that if major sh*t ever does hit the fan the US has as many friendly (or at least neutral) countries on its side as possible.

Back to Argentina, there are a variety of "official" reasons (along with probably a few hidden reasons) that the U.S. and Argentina have been increasing their partnerships of late, including:
The main U.S. concern in Latin America though is China, namely countering current Chinese influence in "authoritarian" countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua; and keeping China from establishing a larger foothold in the region. Prior to General Richardson's (U.S. SOUTHCOM) recent visit to Argentina, she presented a report to the U.S. Senate regarding China, which included the following statement:

“The People’s Republic of China (PRC) understands the importance of economics and the intertwined role of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in achieving its Chinese Dream — the PRC reclamation of China’s central role in world affairs. In Latin America and the Caribbean, USSOUTHCOM recognizes the opportunity to collaborate with our partners, build their capacity, and increase their resiliency to the pervasive challenges and threats they face. Conversely, the PRC is exploiting a fragile security environment and taking advantage of the region’s need for economic investment to gain influence and advance its malign agenda. The PRC knows that economic power is a prerequisite for global military power and it is imperative that we view the PRC’s economic activities, particularly in the Americas, as connected to their global political and military desires.”

Were the United States to ever just withdraw all presence from Latin America completely, or Europe completely, or Southeast Asia completely, or Antarctica and the Arctic completely, or the Middle East completely; the reach and influence of countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea would expand significantly, and China and Russia in particular haven't been shy about their desire to reclaim old stomping grounds. I think that many countries around the world aren't particularly fond of the vast reach of the U.S. military, but they know that the U.S. (for the most part) respects the sovereignty of its allies and doesn't have the desire to increase its territory or redraw its borders through invasion or force. Thus, the U.S. military's presence is welcomed (or at least tolerated) in many parts of the world, as the same can't be said about other global powers.

An example of this would be the recent military agreement between the U.S. and Palau (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...unding-for-pacifics-freely-associated-states/). The U.S. is able to safeguard a strategically important island by increasing its radar and missile defense capabilities, countering Chinese influence in the region, and improving its maritime efforts to protect global shipping lanes, stop illegal fishing, and intercept weapons smugglers. In return, Palau (which has no military and has a history of being colonized) receives U.S. defense guarantees and billions of dollars. Last year, Palau's president said U.S. help was necessary and welcomed to deter China’s “unwanted activities” around its coasts and stop China's "uninvited" and recurring violations of its territory. So for some smaller countries it's as simple as that - protection (and a lot of money) from an invited guest with established intentions, versus no protection and the risk of an uninvited guest forcefully deciding to stake claim to more territory.

We'll see what happens here in Argentina - Milei seems to be highly receptive and intent on building partnerships with the U.S. and increasing military cooperation (likely to curry as much favor and future economic interest from the West as possible). But I'm sure a fairly sizeable portion of Argentina's populace will see any U.S. military presence as another experiment in the U.S. "imperial laboratory" (https://jacobin.com/2023/03/greg-grandin-interview-us-policy-latin-america).
Click to expand...

Well, that was an impressively comprehensive response. You obviously have a solid grasp of strategic analysis.

The problem with this topic is that if we go much further, it will descend into an acrimonious debate of US politics, which are mostly off limits in this venue. Nobody here wants to go back to the open warfare which reigned in these forums 8-10 years ago. So I'll keep my reply brief.

The article at Jacobin which you linked to at the end of your post is a tour de force. I found nothing in it with which I disagree to any substantial extent.

What I really don't want is to see Argentina become the venue of another superpower confrontation. With the slow waning of the insurgencies in Colombia, this continent is at peace. I'd like it to stay that way, and to the devil with any one else's strategic interests. To that end, I don't want to see any foreign bases in Argentina. Not American, nor Russian, nor Chinese. Let them all eff off back to their own hemisphere.
 
Redpossum said:
Well, that was an impressively comprehensive response. You obviously have a solid grasp of strategic analysis.

The problem with this topic is that if we go much further, it will descend into an acrimonious debate of US politics...
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeah, I tried to stick to just the facts and include some links sourced from both sides of the spectrum. I don't really care to engage in any debates either - was just hoping to quash any fears of a penguin invasion.

I'm currently in the U.S. visiting a deeply one-sided state with a controversial governor, and it took me less than 24 hours to realize most political discussions here are fraught with danger. I've gotten very good at just nodding and throwing in some "Mm-Hmms" and "Uh-Huhs" every few seconds until I can find a way to politely excuse myself. BA Expats could probably benefit from a little more "walking away" as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Potential elimination of citizenship-based taxation of American expats Expat Life 16
carride Villarruel breaks tie in Argentina’s Senate to approve Milei’s flagship Ley Bases Articles 36
P Any place to watch the World Baseball Classic game tonight between USA and Venezuela? Expat Life 1
MilHojas China Pressures Argentina to Build Naval Base Articles 0
MilHojas Buenos Aires Eyes Blockchain-Based Identity Platform Articles 1
Similar threads
Potential elimination of citizenship-based taxation of American expats
Villarruel breaks tie in Argentina’s Senate to approve Milei’s flagship Ley Bases
Any place to watch the World Baseball Classic game tonight between USA and Venezuela?
China Pressures Argentina to Build Naval Base
Buenos Aires Eyes Blockchain-Based Identity Platform
Back
Top