Ever since Donald Trump and his sidekick JD Vance kicked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the Oval Office at the White House in an unceremonious display of the arrogance and sheer numb-mindedness that the new American regime has quickly come to be characterised by, the discussion on the Ukraine War has shifted to Europe.

A simple question was raised: if America is not going to offer any support to Ukraine in its war against Russia's illegal invasion into its sovereign territory, then who will? The answer was equally simple: it will have to be Europe.

This past week, leaders of the 27 EU member states got together in an extraordinary summit in Brussels to discuss just this, and emerged with 26 members states - excluding Hungary, which perhaps comes as no surprise considering Victor Orban's pro-Putin leanings - voted for a plan drawn up by the European Commission aimed at mobilising €800 billion to "re-arm Europe" in response to the perceived threat from Russia.

From a local context, Prime Minister Robert Abela was among the more critical voices for this plan.  He said prior to the summit that an increase in military spending "will possibly escalate tensions" and that Malta would not be spending any money on lethal weapons.

He instead wanted the EU to take on Malta's "peace first" principle to try and end the war. "I am not asking Ukraine to renounce itself and declare a defeat, but we cannot say that Ukraine should win at all costs either," Abela said.

Yet despite his apparent reluctance to back the ReArm proposal, Abela and Malta voted in favour of it, with the Prime Minister saying that the country's neutrality had been safeguarded and that participation in the programme is voluntary.

In Parliament back home though, Abela reverted to his stance from before the summit. "Till today, we still do not have tangible results that can lead to the end of the war. Russia's aggression on Ukraine is still unjust, our country has always been clear on that - Ukraine has the right to its territorial integrity," Abela said.

He said that Malta has contributed, but never towards lethal weapons. Abela said that he understands Ukraine's right to its sovereignty, "but we have to be realistic in life."

This is a genuinely odd stance to take.  While Europe understands that Russia poses a threat to the continent's safety, Abela seems to prefer to follow the appeasement school of thought, seeing that Ukraine's own territories are a somehow justified price to pay - meaning that the invader will still be the one to have gained.

For a moment let's say that peace is achieved and the borders today remain as they are, with Russia in control of a sizeable chunk of Ukraine's territory.  What is to stop any peace being broken again?  Russia would then know that they can once again keep pushing with an invasion until they are once again appeased with more territorial gains.

This is also not to mention what a u-turn Abela's statements this month are.  Last month, he told journalists in Brussels that Malta needed to be a bit bolder in its approach towards neutrality and that Malta needs to invest more money in defence.

Now, Abela is saying that those who want to invest more in defence are essentially warmongers. 

The debate on defence, make no mistake, is far bigger than Malta alone.  Europe does need to stand up to be counted, especially as certain allies of old seem to no longer be as reliable as they once were.

History also proves that appeasement is a weak policy and only serves to embolden the aggressor even further.

The war in Ukraine must definitely be brought to an end - of that there is no question.  But that end cannot be to the ultimate benefit of the aggressor.