Last weekend, our editorial commended Malta’s offer to use its neutrality to try to score a truce between Russia and Ukraine. Given that context, Robert Abela’s reluctance to condemn Donald Trump’s verbal assault on Ukraine was, to some extent, understandable.

But a week is a long time in politics. And with each passing day, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Maltese government is shifting from pragmatic diplomacy to dangerous appeasement toward Trump, and possibly, even Russia.

It is also becoming clear Abela is playing two narratives – one for the local audience and another for the EU. Before attending an EU leaders’ summit in Brussels on Thursday, Abela declared that boosting military spending would not end the war in Ukraine. Hours later, he sat with other European leaders to approve an €800 billion plan to strengthen Europe’s defences against the growing threat from Russia. Abela clarified that during the summit, he made Malta’s position clear it will not use money to buy weapons.

Of course, Abela is right in saying military spending alone will not bring peace. But what is the alternative? Bowing down to Russia’s demands and allowing it to absorb a sovereign nation?

Silence in the face of an existential threat to European security is, at best, appeasement and, at worst, complicity

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Trump made it abundantly clear he is willing to sell out America’s closest allies for his own political glory. We only hope our government is not considering sucking up to Trump in the hope of securing one of his dodgy economic deals.

The Maltese government is playing the neutrality card to please everyone, but in the process, it stands for nothing.

The world has changed dramatically since Malta enshrined neutrality in its Constitution during the Cold War. But today, how does neutrality function when MAGA America and Putin’s Russia are dangerously aligned? Do we remain “neutral” in a world where our strongest allies are threatened? Just look at Ireland – a neutral country with far more at stake – which made its support for Ukraine crystal clear.

Meanwhile, the Maltese government continues to try score cheap political points by branding the PN and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola as “warmongers” for supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself. This narrative may appeal to the Labour’s hardcore base, but it is a dishonest formula.

Declaring support for Ukraine is not an act of war but a fundamental matter of dignity. Malta might not be adopting Hungary’s openly pro-Russia stance, but silence in the face of an existential threat to European security is, at best, appeasement and, at worst, complicity.

Abela’s worrying call for “compromise” raises an important question: what exactly does he expect Ukraine to concede? More territory? Another ceasefire deal, like the 25 Russia has already violated since 2014? Ukraine is still standing because it received military support from its allies. Without it, Russia would have already eaten up Ukraine, and a Kremlin-backed regime would have replaced Zelensky. And once Ukraine falls, which country will be next? Neighbouring Poland? Tiny Malta?

History teaches us that appeasement is a terrible idea when dealing with expansionist strongmen like Putin. The 1938 Munich Agreement, which split Czechoslovakia in a failed bid to pacify Hitler, is a stark warning of what happens when dictators are given an inch.

Abela cannot risk somewhat isolating Malta from the EU at such a critical moment. Imagine Trump decides to declare Malta the ‘Riviera of the Med’ or Putin starts parking his warships in our Grand Harbour. Who do we turn to? Our security is guaranteed only through our European project.

Nobody in his right mind wants war. But at this very delicate juncture, we need to ask the question – whose side are we really on?