The Peril of False Neutrality: Abela’s Stance on Ukraine in Historical Context

The chaotic confrontation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former US President Donald Trump, culminating in a shouting match at the White House, symbolized the unraveling of diplomatic decorum in the face of war. Yet, the deeper fracture lies not just in Western discord but in the competing narratives that underpin the conflict. Prime Minister Robert Abela’s attempt to position Malta as a neutral mediator — emphasizing peace without condemning aggression — echoes historical precedents where neutrality blurred the line between diplomacy and complicity. But it also hints at an unspoken reality: Russia’s grievances, though no justification for war, are not without substance.

Neutrality vs. Complicity: Lessons from the 1930s

Abela’s reluctance to condemn Trump and Vance’s treatment of Zelensky, coupled with his call for compromise, recalls the appeasement policies of the 1930s. When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain negotiated the Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938, he inadvertently emboldened German expansionism. By failing to stand firmly against Russia’s invasion, Abela risks signaling that aggression can be a legitimate negotiation tool.

However, Russia’s narrative — that NATO’s eastward expansion threatened its security — echoes historical concerns about encirclement. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has viewed NATO enlargement as a breach of promises made during German reunification. While this fear doesn’t justify an invasion, it reveals the West’s failure to address Russia’s post-Cold War anxieties, fueling a sense of betrayal that Vladimir Putin has exploited to justify his actions.

The Danger of Declinism: Echoes of the Cold War

Abela’s assertion that Ukraine cannot win the war and that Europe can’t sustain aid without US backing mirrors Cold War-era fatalism. Just as smaller states resigned themselves to Soviet influence, Abela seems to accept Russia’s dominance as inevitable. Yet, Ukraine’s resilience challenges this narrative. The successes of the Ukrainian military — reminiscent of Finland’s defiance during the Winter War of 1939 — show that smaller states can resist larger aggressors, especially with sustained international support.

At the same time, Russia’s fear of losing Ukraine to the West is not purely imperialistic. Ukraine is culturally and historically intertwined with Russia, and the prospect of losing this connection to a Western-aligned government taps into a deeply rooted national trauma. For many Russians, Ukraine's drift toward the EU and NATO feels like the final unraveling of their sphere of influence — a sentiment Putin has skillfully manipulated.

War Profiteering and Realpolitik: Shadows of the Balkan Wars

Abela’s claim that some countries benefit financially from prolonging the war echoes the cynicism that surrounded the Yugoslav Wars. Just as arms dealers profited from Balkan bloodshed, defense industries now thrive on the Ukraine conflict. Yet, Russia’s own war economy, fueled by oligarchic interests and a desire to assert dominance, is equally invested in continued conflict. The argument that Western states are exploiting the war for profit loses weight when considering Russia’s parallel reliance on sustained military production to prop up its economy.

Moreover, Russia’s valid concerns about the treatment of Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine, particularly in Donbas, were largely ignored by the West before 2014. While these issues never warranted military aggression, the failure to address them diplomatically contributed to the escalation of tensions. A sustainable peace would require acknowledging these grievances — not as a justification for war but as a necessary step toward reconciliation.

The Cost of Silence: Malta’s Crossroads

Abela’s refusal to condemn either side, justified by his desire to act as a neutral mediator, raises an uncomfortable question: Can peace be brokered without addressing the root causes of conflict? History suggests otherwise. The most successful peace processes — like South Africa’s transition from apartheid — succeeded because mediators balanced impartiality with moral clarity.

For Malta’s offer to host a peace summit to be credible, it must acknowledge both the injustice of Russia’s invasion and the legitimacy of some Russian concerns. Peace cannot come from a lopsided victory or unconditional surrender, but from a process that addresses historical wounds without rewarding violence.

Peace Requires Justice and Understanding

Prime Minister Abela’s emphasis on peace reflects a genuine desire to prevent further suffering. Yet, history warns against mistaking neutrality for wisdom. While Russia’s security fears and cultural ties to Ukraine deserve consideration, they do not excuse the violation of international law. True peace requires not just compromise but accountability — and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths on both sides.

If Malta wishes to be a credible mediator, it must advocate for a resolution that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty while addressing Russia’s anxieties. Only by balancing justice with empathy can a lasting peace be forged — one that prevents future wars rather than merely pausing the current one.