On February 24, 2025, the Argentine Air Force inducted its first F-16 fighter jet at a ceremony held at the 6th Air Brigade in Tandil, Buenos Aires—an event marking a significant milestone in the modernisation of Argentina’s Armed Forces. (Photo: Mundo de Aviación)
Based on Maria Zuppello/Diálogo
Argentina and the United States continue to strengthen a partnership spanning over two centuries, rooted in shared values and a mutual commitment to regional security. Recent developments reflect an ongoing deepening of defence and security cooperation between the two nations.
Among the most notable milestones, Argentina’s Joint Special Operations Command and the U.S. Special Operations Command South (SOCSOUTH) convened their first bilateral Special Operations Forces Talks (SOF Talks), aiming to enhance operational collaboration and lay the groundwork for sustained training partnerships. Concurrently, the Argentine Armed Forces commemorated the arrival of their first F-16 fighter jet, acquired with support from the United States, signalling a pivotal advancement in the country’s aerial defence capabilities.
“Argentina has a historic opportunity to redefine its role on the global stage. A strategic alliance with the United States not only modernises our military and technological capacity but also reshapes international perceptions of our country,” said Roberto Lafforgue, a seasoned diplomat and former officer in the Argentine Navy, in an interview with Diálogo.
SOF Talks ARG–U.S. Defence Partnership 2
Argentine President Javier Milei delivers a speech during a ceremony marking the U.S. donation of a C-130H Hercules aircraft to the Argentine Air Force, Buenos Aires, April 5, 2024. (Photo: U.S. Embassy in Argentina)
In mid-March, Argentina’s Joint Special Operations Command and SOCSOUTH formalised enhanced collaboration through the inaugural SOF Talks. This high-level strategic forum aims to improve joint military readiness and reinforce regional security through combined training exercises, knowledge-sharing among special forces, and standardisation of operational procedures. The dialogue concluded with the signing of a memorandum of understanding, endorsed by Argentine Army Brigadier General Cristian Pablo Pafundi, operational commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Mark Schafer, commander of SOCSOUTH. The agreement formalised a long-term training commitment for Argentine special forces.
Established in 2018, Argentina’s Joint Special Operations Command is a relatively new entity that has rapidly developed its capabilities to address the increasing complexity of special operations missions. The new cooperation framework represents a critical move towards achieving greater interoperability and improving joint readiness in the face of shared security challenges.
One of the central components of this growing partnership is the planned Atlantic Dagger exercise, scheduled for February 2026 in Argentina’s Patagonia region. Although still in the preparation stage, the exercise is set to unfold in rugged locations such as Tierra del Fuego, Santa Cruz, and Islas de los Estados, renowned for their harsh weather and topography. Modelled after U.S. Special Forces operations in Alaska, the drill will involve high-stress, simultaneous manoeuvres in extreme conditions. Moreover, the training will serve to bolster Argentina’s operational preparedness in the Strait of Magellan, a key strategic maritime passageway linked to the Antarctic region.
New Aircraft
Marking a transformative moment in Argentina’s military modernisation efforts, the Argentine Air Force (FAA) officially received its first Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon in a highly publicised ceremony at the 6th Air Brigade in Tandil, Buenos Aires. According to defence publication Janes, Argentina is expected to receive an additional 24 F-16 aircraft starting in December 2025.
ARG–U.S. Defence Partnership 3
“One of the finest fighter jets in the world is now part of the FAA’s arsenal, reinforcing the defence of our national sovereignty across the entire territory,” stated the Argentine Ministry of Defense. “This marks the recovery of our supersonic capabilities and the beginning of a new chapter for our Armed Forces.”
In April 2024, Argentina signed an agreement to acquire 24 U.S.-made F-16s from Denmark—a $300 million transaction supported by $40 million in U.S. Foreign Military Financing, the first such funding granted to Argentina since 2003. This purchase is part of a broader set of acquisitions involving U.S. defence technology. Other notable agreements include a deal with Norway for four Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft for maritime patrol and surveillance, and a proposed acquisition of a Basler BT-67 aircraft from the United States for logistical missions in Antarctica. Additionally, in April 2024, the U.S. government transferred a C-130H Hercules transport aircraft to the FAA—valued at approximately $30 million—as part of a security assistance donation.
Cybersecurity
Another critical area of progress in bilateral defence relations is cybersecurity. In late March 2024, Argentine Minister of Defense Luis Petri and then U.S. Ambassador to Argentina Marc Stanley signed a cybersecurity cooperation agreement. Under this framework, both nations committed to expanding joint training, operational collaboration, and technological support in the realm of cyber defence.
“We signed a cyber defence memorandum with the U.S.—a crucial step forward in strengthening Argentina’s digital defence capabilities thanks to U.S. support,” Minister Petri wrote on his X account. “This partnership is a reflection of the deep and strategic relationship between our countries and a testament to our shared commitment to work together.”
For Roberto Lafforgue, the deepening of the Argentina–U.S. alliance is a welcome development. “Joint operations in the South Atlantic, collaboration on Antarctic initiatives, and cybersecurity cooperation are essential tools to confront transnational threats such as organised crime and drug trafficking, and to avoid alignment with global powers that do not share our democratic values,” he concluded.
Proposal for Changes to Toponymy in Argentina: Restoring the Authentic Indigenous Peoples in the Face of Araucanian/Mapuche Appropriation
Abstract
This report analyses the proposal to modify place names in Argentina by replacing those of Mapuche or Araucanian origin with names in the languages of peoples who were ancestrally settled to the east of the Andes, such as the Tehuelches or Aonikenk. The proposal is based on historical and linguistic evidence demonstrating that the Mapuche are indigenous to the western slopes of the Andes, in what is now Chile, and that their presence in Argentine Patagonia is the result of a relatively recent expansion, beginning in the seventeenth century. The work of anthropologist Rodolfo Casamiquela on this phenomenon will be reviewed, as well as the influence of foreign organisations, such as Mapuche International Links, which promote claims lacking solid historical foundations and exhibiting notable ideological bias.
1. Introduction
Toponymy in Argentina reflects the history of the peoples who have inhabited its territory. However, in recent decades, a movement has emerged seeking to impose a narrative portraying the Mapuche as the sole indigenous people of Patagonia, a claim that contradicts archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic research. Given the importance of historical and territorial identity, this report argues for the need to restore traditional names linked to the truly pre-existing peoples of Argentine Patagonia, primarily the Tehuelches (Aonikenk and Güŋüna Küne) and the Pampas, displacing place names imposed by the Mapuche expansion from Chile.
2. The Trans-Andean Origin of the Araucanians and Their Eastward Expansion
2.1 Historical and Anthropological Evidence
Archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence indicates that the Mapuche did not inhabit eastern Patagonia prior to the seventeenth century. In his work Who Were the Tehuelches? An Ethnicity on the Verge of Extinction (1969), Rodolfo Casamiquela refutes the notion that the Mapuche are the original inhabitants of Argentine territory, documenting their advance from Chile through a process of acculturation and subjugation of the indigenous peoples who had lived there. Casamiquela notes that the term "Araucanisation" refers to the cultural, linguistic, and political imposition of Mapuche influence over the Tehuelches and other groups east of the Andes.
The Tehuelches, comprising groups such as the Aonikenk and Güŋüna Küne, occupied vast areas of Argentine Patagonia from pre-Hispanic times. Their presence has been confirmed through archaeological studies in the central and southern plateaus of the country. In contrast, the Mapuche only appear in the region during relatively recent times, as a result of migrations and interethnic conflicts.
2.2 Linguistic and Cultural Evidence
Casamiquela also highlights the progressive disappearance of the Tehuelche languages due to the process of Mapuchisation. Prior to the seventeenth century, Argentine Patagonia was inhabited by groups who spoke languages distinct from Mapudungun. However, with the Mapuche expansion, these languages were replaced, and today only vestiges remain in toponymy and ethnographic records.
Linguist Viegas Barros (1998) reinforces this view by pointing out that the Tehuelche (Aonikenk) language has its own distinctive roots, separate from Mapudungun, further evidencing that the Aonikenk were the original inhabitants of the region prior to the arrival of the Mapuche.
2.3 The Historical Presence of the Aonikenk and the Late Arrival of the Mapuche
The Aonikenk, commonly referred to as Tehuelches or Patagonians, were the original inhabitants of Argentine Patagonia. Their presence is recorded from the time of European expeditions, such as Magellan’s in 1520 and FitzRoy and Darwin’s explorations in the nineteenth century. Anthropological and linguistic studies have confirmed their existence in the territory since pre-Columbian times.
Anthropologist and historian Rodolfo Casamiquela (1978) was a leading figure in demonstrating the prior presence of the Tehuelches in eastern Patagonia. In his work The Techno-Cultural Areas of Southern Argentina and Chile, he argues that the Mapuche migration eastward across the Andes was a relatively recent phenomenon, and that the Araucanisation of the Tehuelches was a forced process of cultural and linguistic assimilation (Casamiquela, 1978).
Casamiquela maintains that the Mapuche originated from the western side of the Andes and crossed into Argentine territory in search of new resources and trading opportunities, spurred by the introduction of horses brought by the Spanish. This process, which intensified between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, led to a linguistic and cultural replacement that eventually gave rise to the mistaken belief that the Mapuche were Patagonia’s ancestral inhabitants.
Moreover, colonial records and accounts by European travellers confirm that until the mid-eighteenth century, there is no documented Mapuche presence in the Pampas or Patagonia. In contrast, Tehuelche settlements are well documented across vast areas of modern Argentine territory (Bridges, 1948; Borrero, 2001).
3. Toponymy and the Need for Change
Toponymy in Argentina has been profoundly altered by Mapuche expansion. Many names of Tehuelche origin have been replaced by Mapudungun terms as a result of the cultural imposition suffered by these peoples. Clear examples include:
Chubut, originally Tchubut, an Aonikenk word meaning "transparent", although later reinterpreted through a Mapuche phonetic lens.
Neuquén, a Mapuche term that superseded previous names used by the indigenous peoples of the area.
Río Negro, a region originally populated by the Pampas and Güŋüna Küne before the Mapuche arrival.
A process of restoring ancestral place names would be an act of historical justice, allowing the true identity of the peoples who inhabited Argentina prior to Mapuche expansion to be reclaimed.
Cities and Regions in the Province of Buenos Aires with Araucanian Names That Could Be Changed to Their Corresponding Aonikenk (or Spanish) Equivalents
4. External Interference: Mapuche International Links and Its Role in Historical Distortion
4.1 Origin and Composition of the Organisation
One of the main sources supporting the narrative of Mapuche ancestral presence in Patagonia is the organisation Mapuche International Links, whose website (https://www.mapuche-nation.org/) promotes a biased version of history. Strikingly, this organisation is headquartered in the United Kingdom and funded by British sources, raising questions about its true interests in the region.
Moreover, its composition is highly irregular: although it presents itself as an organisation defending the Mapuche people, only one of its members is of Chilean origin, while the rest are British citizens. This imbalance suggests that the organisation may be operating with a covert geopolitical agenda rather than a genuine interest in indigenous rights.
4.2 Lack of Evidence Behind Their Claims
Mapuche International Links bases its claims on oral tradition without archaeological or documentary support. Historical sources from Argentina and Chile, including the chronicles of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century missionaries and travellers, confirm that the Mapuche did not inhabit eastern Patagonia prior to the process of Araucanisation. Their arrival resulted from a series of migratory movements that, in many cases, involved the conquest and assimilation of local peoples.
The insistence on an alleged "ancestral" Mapuche presence in Argentine Patagonia lacks foundation and appears to be driven more by political and economic interests than by historical reality.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The revision of toponymy in Argentina is a matter of historical justice for the peoples who are truly indigenous to the territory. Given that the Mapuche presence in Argentine Patagonia is the result of a recent expansion rather than an ancestral occupation, it is necessary to restore names of Tehuelche, Aonikenk, and Pampa origin, replacing those imposed through Mapuche influence.
It is also crucial to highlight the interference of foreign organisations such as Mapuche International Links, whose agenda appears more aligned with external interests than with the historical reality of Argentina's indigenous peoples. Identifying and studying these actors will provide a clearer understanding of the political background behind the attempted manipulation of historical narratives.
The restoration of authentic toponymy not only corrects a historical distortion but also reinforces national identity and preserves the memory of the true indigenous peoples of Argentine Patagonia. Unfortunately, the Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires — misleadingly presenting itself as a private institution under the name Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) — strengthens this cultural invasion by offering courses in the language of the invading group. The Universidad Nacional del Comahue is also involved in this cultural and indigenist invasion, promoting the hoisting of the Araucanian flag and endorsing absurd pre-Columbian festivities.
In light of the analysis presented, it is reasonable to propose a review of the current toponymy in Argentina with the aim of restoring names that more accurately reflect the historical and cultural identity of the region. This would involve:
Replacing Mapuche names with Aonikenk/Tehuelche denominations, recognising their earlier presence in Patagonia and the Pampas.
Promoting historical and linguistic research to recover the original names of rivers, mountains, and localities prior to Araucanisation.
Raising public awareness of the true history of Argentina's indigenous peoples, avoiding ideological manipulation or foreign interests in the construction of artificial identities.
References
Borrero, L. (2001). Los Tehuelches: Historia y Arqueología de un Pueblo Nómade.
Bridges, L. (1948). Uttermost Part of the Earth.
Casamiquela, R. (1969). ¿Quiénes eran los Tehuelches? Una etnia en vías de extinción. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Viegas Barros, J. (1998). Estudios sobre la lengua tehuelche. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Mandrini, R. (2006). Los pueblos originarios de la Argentina: su historia desde los primeros pobladores hasta la conquista europea. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Crónicas de viajeros y misioneros del siglo XVIII y XIX sobre los tehuelches y mapuches.
This report proposes a concrete action for the recovery of Patagonia’s historical identity, based on available archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence. Below is a list of locations named using terms from the Araucanian/Mapuche language under the "Mapuche" column, with approximate translations into English and Aonikenk provided in the corresponding columns. It is proposed that Araucanian toponyms be replaced with their equivalents in either Spanish or Aonikenk.
As part of the cultural battle against false indigenism, which portrays the Araucanian people as victims, it is necessary to follow the path of historical evidence to restore the cultural heritage of the peoples who genuinely inhabited Patagonia.
Places with Araucanian Toponymy and Their Translation, Where Feasible, into the Aonikenk Language
Account of Second Lieutenant Juan Gabino Suárez, Chief of the “last gun” of the 4th Airborne Artillery Group (GAAerot 4)
I share this account once again because Rear Admiral Carlos Hugo Robacio deserves to be remembered as he truly was — by living and reliving a part of his life.
I will never tire of saying it. Never.
Our place in the war: Sapper Hill (Puerto Argentino, Malvinas Islands, Republic of Argentina) — with a forward detachment in San Carlos alongside Battery "A".
A field artilleryman loves to see where his rounds land. He thrives on observing, calculating, correcting. But when you’re the Chief of the Gun Section, that privilege is gone. From the rear —where all you hear are the fire commands and the thunder of the guns— you must imagine the battlefield, reconstruct in your mind what’s unfolding ahead, guided only by instinct, by training... and by doctrine.
That’s when fire adjustment comes alive —the craft of bracketing a target with precision. It's a method as old as it is effective: the first shot, far from being decisive, is merely a starting point. In artillery, a direct hit on the first round proves nothing. Only through disciplined bracketing—first in azimuth, then in range—can effective fire be achieved.
But in the urgency of combat, the temptation to cut corners is always there. One tends to stray from the textbook, from regulation, from what was drilled into you in the classroom. You want to solve everything at once. And that’s where those who forget the fundamentals make their first mistake. Because when the situation is real, and the enemy is advancing, all you have left is what you learned —and held onto.
And then, he appeared: Captain Carlos Hugo Robacio, Commander of Marine Battalion 5. The moment his fire requests began coming in, I knew instantly he was applying doctrine with surgical precision. His Initial Fire Request (IFR) was flawless: the target was clearly described —width, depth, distance, bearing from magnetic north. Everyone in the fire chain knew exactly what had to be done. Tactical clarity radiated through the net. And that kind of clarity inspires. From gun crews to the Fire Direction Center (FDC) and the Fire Support Coordinator (FSC), everyone locked in. CN Carlos Robacio in Malvinas
I could read his thinking through the rounds.
The first shot landed off to one side.
The second, at the opposite end.
What was he doing?
He was bracketing the target, establishing the axis of correction. Pure doctrine. Pure art.
The third corrected direction.
The fourth refined range.
The fifth: ten rounds, fire for effect.
Not a moment of hesitation. Robacio didn’t ask —he ordered. And every order was exact.
Then came confirmation from the Forward Observer: successful impact. But who exactly were we firing on? These weren’t theoretical targets. We were firing on British troops who had already closed within 150 meters of our lines —some even closer. Robacio had cut the enemy advance in two, separating the forward elements from the main assault force still pushing up from the rear. He bought time —and lives.
And then, the critical moment.
The new coordinates overlapped the exact position of Marine Battalion 5. The FDC hesitated. “We can’t fire there —our own men are on that grid!” But Robacio didn’t flinch:
“They’re among us! Get in your foxholes and open fire. Fire! Fire! Fire!”
The order came out furious, direct, visceral. And it was necessary.
Even with our guns buried, we kept fighting back.
I don’t remember how many volleys we fired on that line —but it was a lot. Hundreds of rounds. Robacio kept pushing them back, forcing the enemy to scatter. And when he sensed it was time, he ordered a fire barrier. Precision calculations. All guns firing on a perfect line. A wall of steel. And he drove them even farther. Until the guns fell silent.
To me, it was a masterclass in fire control. No hesitation. No second-guessing. Robacio owned the battlefield like a conductor with an orchestra —with precision, instinct, and total battlefield awareness. He was a professional. A tactician. A clear-headed combat leader.
But what were the British really trying to do by attacking BIM5? Was it a diversion? A beachhead for a future assault on Port Stanley? A test of our responsiveness?
Even today, this engagement is barely remembered, hardly studied, nearly absent from the official accounts. And yet, it was one of the most technically sound and fiercely fought defenses of the entire war.
I hope this testimony serves to highlight the professional excellence of Captain Robacio, his tactical brilliance, and his nerve under fire. We never had the chance to work together before the war —but in those days, I could read his mind through every shot fired.
And in artillery, that’s worth more than a thousand words.
One of our artillery guns —in those first days, our assigned combat position— might well be the emblematic one. Maybe because of where it stood. The fence posts were still upright, and the comrades of BIM 5 were up ahead, still building their own defenses.
Forgive me for bringing back these memories —memories of those howitzers that once held back the British advance, firing until there was nothing left to shoot.
(Sapper Hil, Puerto Argentino, Republic of Argentina)
Model 8A-2
Version for Argentina. Equipped with fixed landing gear, ventral gun position, and powered by an 840 hp (626 kW) Wright R-1820-G3 Cyclone engine. 30 units built.
The Northrop A-17, a development of the Northrop Gamma 2F, was a two-seat, single-engine monoplane attack bomber built in 1935 by the Northrop Corporation for the U.S. Army Air Corps. (Source: Wikipedia)
.
Cyclone Wright R-1820-E. Museo Smithsonian del Espacio Aéreo. corriente continua
North American NA-16
Curtiss Hawk 75H
North American Aviation NA-16 was the first trainer aircraft built by North American Aviation, Inc., and marked the beginning of a line of American training aircraft that would eventually exceed 17,000 units.
Developed into:
North American BT-9
T-6 Texan
North American P-64
CAC Wirraway
The NA-16 was a single-engine, low-wing monoplane with tandem open cockpits and fixed landing gear. It was powered by a 400 hp air-cooled Wright Whirlwind radial engine. Although primarily of metal construction, the rear fuselage was fabric-covered.
The NA-16 first flew on April 1, 1935, and was sent to the United States Army Air Corps for evaluation as a basic trainer. The Army accepted the trainer for production but requested several significant modifications. These included replacing the Wright engine with a Pratt & Whitney R-1340, enclosing the cockpits, and adding fairings to the landing gear. The modified NA-16 was redesignated by North American as the NA-18, with production models entering Air Corps service as the North American BT-9 (NA-19).
In Australia, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) produced 755 units of a modified version of the NA-16, known locally as the Wirraway, between 1939 and 1946.
Additionally, two NA-16 trainers were supplied to the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service for evaluation in 1938, designated as KXA1 and KXA2.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Curtiss Hawk 75
Gloster Meteor F4
100 units were exported to Argentina, and they saw action on both sides during the 1955 revolution, with one aircraft lost on September 19, 1955.
The Argentine Air Force ordered 50 Meteor F.4s in May 1947, which included 50 ex-RAF aircraft and 50 newly built units. Deliveries began in July of that year. The Meteor remained in service until 1970, when the last aircraft were replaced by the Dassault Mirage III.
Brístol F.2B
Aeronaves militares y civiles en 1948. Fuente: "La Aeronautica Nacional al servicio del pais"
Avro Lincoln
Vickers "Vickings" cargo aircrafts
Bristol Tipo 170 Cargo plane
Douglas DC-4
De Havilland "Dove"
Canberra Mk 62
Surviving Examples
The Argentine Air Force received 27 Model 139W/WAA aircraft.
The only complete surviving B-10 is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio. The aircraft is painted to represent a B-10 used during the 1934 Alaska Flight. It is actually an export version sold to Argentina in 1938.
The aircraft survived as a ground crew training platform, and the Argentine Air Force continued using it to train personnel well into the 1960s. The U.S. Air Force Museum conducted an extensive search for surviving B-10 parts and eventually discovered this aircraft.
In 1970, the incomplete fuselage was formally donated by the Argentine government to the United States government, in a ceremony attended by the U.S. ambassador.
The aircraft was restored by the 96th Maintenance Squadron (Mobile), Air Force Reserve, at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, between 1973 and 1976, and was put on display in 1976.
