Robert Abela tried on Otto von Bismarck’s socks when asked by his staffer to react to the Trump-Zelensky showdown in the Oval Office. Abela read out Ukraine’s obituary, or at the very least, he pronounced dead the sovereign Ukraine that emerged as an independent country in 1991 and relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees from Russia and the US that its territorial integrity would be preserved.

Those promises have long been forgotten. Since 1991, Russia has turned into a tyranny led by an expansionist who shows little regard for the sovereignty of its neighbours that it seeks to consume. Moreover, the United States has followed suit more recently. Neither seems interested in protecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

So, who is going to do it instead? Not Europe, said Abela. It would cost too much for Europeans to do it alone, which would mean raising taxes. Our prime minister stated that was out of the question. Ukraine should, instead, “make compromises”, which means giving up territory and handing it over to the aggressor who invaded it.

Abela is not the first “realist” pundit to suggest accepting Ukraine’s fate now that its neighbour has invaded and its patron has abandoned it. However, I must emphasise that Abela is no mere pundit; he is Malta’s prime minister. His remarks should be regarded as Malta’s foreign policy. I would argue that this represents the most significant foreign policy U-turn in Malta’s history as an independent country, including the freezing and thawing of our application to join the EU.

The prime minister’s remarks suggest that international conflicts should be resolved not by lawful rights but, rather, by the balance of military power between conflicting parties. Russia is militarily stronger than Ukraine. The United States no longer wishes to support Ukraine and the EU should not bear the burden of supporting Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine must relinquish territory to the invading country.

I cannot recall any episode since 1964 when Malta has taken such an unfair stance under any government regarding any similarly one-sided conflict occurring anywhere in the world. Have we ever sided with the perpetrators against the victims? I don’t believe we have.

This has never been Malta’s foreign policy, nor could it have been. You see, rules-based multilateralism is relatively new in the history of diplomacy. Earlier attempts at international congresses and bilateral treaties between countries have existed as long as cuneiform grocery lists. However, it has only been since 1945 that we have established a world governance system through the UN and its legal framework, including the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

I’m not naive enough to believe that realpolitik and the narrow interests of powers have not played significant roles during this time or that politicians have not cynically circumvented international law far too often. However, it is significant that, since Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy left the League of Nations, every country in the world has attempted to justify its actions within the framework of international law.

I’m not discussing this out of nostalgia or to provide Abela with a history lesson. We exist as a sovereign nation, despite having the military strength of a modest police station compared to larger countries, thanks to this international law system. Our historical viability as a sovereign nation aligns closely with the UN system of international law.

Since post-war decolonisation, no one has been able to march into Malta and claim it as their own without facing the consequences of the UN system. The Soviet Union attempted this with Afghanistan. Iraq tried it with Kuwait. The outrage over the illegality of those actions contributed at least in part to the necessity for their reversals.

Russia sought to use Malta as a warm-water naval base at the turn of the 19th century- Manuel Delia

Abela did not merely bury Ukraine’s sovereignty. He abandoned the notion that when a more powerful country invades another’s territory, the international community will apply every means at its disposal – declarations, sanctions, and, if necessary, military force – to reverse the unlawful act. Abela indeed believes that protecting the integrity of a country’s territory from another army’s invasion is not worth spending any other country’s resources. Such as his money. Ours. Abela does not think we should be paying higher taxes to assist Ukraine in defending itself.

Has Abela not realised how the world is changing? The United States will no longer ask for permission before claiming the territory of a smaller country. Consider its claim on Greenland, an island it covets “for strategic reasons” which it openly claims despite belonging to someone else. Consider its claim on the Panama Canal due to its value as a maritime logistics node. Consider its project to depopulate Gaza of its residents to transform it into desirable Mediterranean waterfront real estate for the ultra-wealthy and white. Strategic islands? Maritime hubs? Tourism paradises? No bells?

Is there not cause for concern regarding Malta’s future as a sovereign country? Does this not resemble 19th-century colonialism, about which we should be well-informed?

Nor can the United States be relied upon to insist that the countries it considers counterparts on the world stage – China, for instance, or Russia – respect the sovereign territories of smaller nations.

For most of our history, we have not been independent. Conquerors marched up our shores, easily defeating our comical defences whenever they deemed this country had strategic value. Russia sought to use Malta as a warm-water naval base at the turn of the 19th century. They had strategic interests then, and they continue to have them, primarily due to their activities in northern Africa. Malta would be an ideal location. Vladimir Putin has a talent for recalling and rewriting outdated history to justify his criminal acts.

What will other countries say to Abela when he dons military fatigues and urges others to defend us from the colonising occupation of an aggressive giant? I acknowledge that Abela would look quite dishy in military fatigues.

Will they tell him it’s not worth spending money to rescue Malta, as Americans and British did in our gravest hour of need in 1942? Will they tell him he should compromise?

What does Abela consider a fair compromise? Would he surrender Grand Harbour, the Freeport or Gozo?

Our national security strategy must never rely solely on cold realpolitik, where might makes right. Dom Mintoff understood this when he sought ‘security guarantees’ from our neighbours, securing their commitment to send troops if anyone else attacked us. Zelensky is asking for nothing more.

We are truly entering rough waters for a small island nation like ours, unlike anything we have seen since the Axis powers bombed us because they felt they could.

You’d think the last country to alter its foreign policy to withhold support for multilateralism and international law would be small, fragile Malta.

Abela believes he can flex his muscles and scare everyone away – summer child.