Argentine President Javier Milei has escalated his country's long-running claim to the Falkland Islands, announcing plans for tougher sanctions against companies involved in oil development around the British territory and pledging to strengthen Argentina's presence in the South Atlantic.
In a televised national address on Thursday, Mr Milei said his government would target companies involved in oil operations around the islands without Argentine approval, including those connected with the major Sea Lion development.
He also announced plans to send a new National Sovereignty Defence Bill to Argentina's Congress and confirmed plans to expand Argentina's naval presence in Tierra del Fuego.
The measures mark a significant hardening of rhetoric from a president who has previously spoken of pursuing Argentina's claim through diplomacy.
But while the tone from Buenos Aires may have changed, the dispute itself is anything but new.
Successive Argentine governments have pursued sovereignty over the Falkland Islands for generations. Argentina continues to call the territory Las Malvinas and regards the recovery of sovereignty as a national objective.
Britain's position is equally clear: sovereignty cannot be discussed against the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands.
Those wishes could hardly have been expressed more decisively.
In the Falkland Islands referendum of March 2013, 99.8 per cent of those voting chose to retain the islands' status as a British Overseas Territory. Turnout was 92 per cent.
That democratic mandate remains at the heart of Britain's position. The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination and have repeatedly made clear that they wish to remain British.
The latest confrontation has been driven in part by the enormous economic potential of the waters surrounding the islands.
The Sea Lion oil development in the North Falkland Basin is being advanced by Israeli company Navitas Petroleum and British company Rockhopper Exploration, with production expected to begin later this decade.
Argentina considers exploration and production in those waters without its permission to be unlawful. Britain and the Falkland Islands Government reject that position, maintaining that the islands are entitled to develop their own natural resources.
Mr Milei's government is now seeking to widen the scope of Argentine sanctions beyond the companies directly involved to include shareholders, directors and suppliers.
His tougher approach also comes at a politically significant moment.
Mr Milei has seized on recent comments from US President Donald Trump, who has suggested that Washington could reconsider aspects of its historic position on the Falklands dispute.
For Buenos Aires, any suggestion of movement in Washington is significant. For Britain, however, the fundamental question is not what Argentina or the United States wants. It is what the Falkland Islanders themselves want.
Claire Bullivant, Chief Executive of the Great British PAC, said:
President Milei is perfectly entitled to make speeches in Buenos Aires. What he is not entitled to do is decide the future of people who have already made their wishes overwhelmingly clear.
The Falkland Islanders voted by 99.8 per cent to remain a British Overseas Territory in 2013. That is the fact that matters. Their right to self-determination cannot simply be brushed aside because it is inconvenient to Argentina's territorial ambitions.
Successive Argentine governments have pursued their claim to the Falklands for generations. President Milei's rhetoric may be stronger, and his threatened sanctions against companies operating around the islands may be more aggressive, but the fundamental answer remains unchanged: the future of the Falkland Islands belongs to the Falkland Islanders.
There is also a wider lesson here for the British Government. You cannot proclaim the importance of self-determination in the Falklands while being prepared to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius without giving the Chagossian people a meaningful say over the sovereignty of their homeland. Britain must be consistent.
The Great British PAC will always stand up for British sovereignty and, above all, for the right of people in our overseas territories to determine their own future.
The Falklands are British because the Falkland Islanders have chosen to be British. Unless and until they decide otherwise, that should be the beginning and the end of the matter.
The comparison with Chagos is one the Great British PAC believes the Government cannot easily avoid.
The PAC has been campaigning against the proposed transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and has argued consistently that the Chagossian people themselves should be given a meaningful say over the future of their homeland.
That principle should not depend upon which ocean an island happens to sit in.
If self-determination is the foundation of Britain's position towards the Falklands, it should also carry weight when decisions are being made about Chagos.
There is, of course, a profound historical backdrop to the latest dispute.
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982. Britain responded by sending a naval task force thousands of miles to the South Atlantic. The islands were liberated following a 74-day conflict in which 255 British military personnel, three Falkland Islanders and hundreds of Argentine servicemen lost their lives.
That history inevitably gives any escalation in rhetoric between London and Buenos Aires additional significance.
But Britain does not need to relive the rhetoric of 1982 to answer Argentina's claim in 2026.
The strongest argument is democratic rather than martial.
Around 3,500 people live on the Falkland Islands. They have their own elected government, their own community and a distinct identity forged over generations. They have been asked how they wish to be governed and have given an overwhelming answer.
Britain should neither apologise for respecting that choice nor allow geopolitical manoeuvring elsewhere to weaken its commitment to it.
Mr Milei can strengthen sanctions. Argentina can build its diplomatic campaign. Governments in Washington and elsewhere can reconsider their positions if they choose.
None of those things changes the central fact.
The Falkland Islanders have already had their say.
Their answer was British.