NEUTRAL MALTA? THEN DEFEND YOURSELF
By Canadian American
President Trump’s plan to pull US troops from Europe sends a vital message. America should no longer subsidise the defence of European states that refuse to pay their way. Malta offers the clearest example.
Malta proudly maintains constitutional neutrality. It stays outside NATO. Yet the island enjoys security underwritten by American power across Europe. US forces and commitments deter threats in the region. This shield lets Malta keep its military tiny and its spending low. Valletta contributes little while expecting protection when needed.
The Armed Forces of Malta number around 1,950 personnel. Its defence budget sits at roughly 0.5 per cent of GDP. In recent years, spending reached about $110 million. Maltese leaders prefer other priorities. They rely on the broader European umbrella, and thus American strength, for real emergencies. This free-riding will stop.
Malta’s forces reveal the problem in stark detail. The AFM is brigade-sized with three regiments and minimal air and naval units. Its maritime squadron operates just a handful of patrol vessels. The flagship P71, a €50 million offshore patrol boat, has sat idle for nearly a year due to technical issues. The air wing relies on light aircraft like the King Air B200 for patrols and AW139 helicopters for search and rescue. There are no fighter jets or robust air defences.
In crises, Malta turns quickly to allies. It holds a long-standing 1981 agreement with Italy. Under this pact, Italy guarantees Malta’s neutrality and can deploy forces if the island faces attack. Maltese leaders also lean on EU missions for Mediterranean security and migration control. This dependence lets Valletta focus spending on wages and civilian tasks rather than serious defence.
Trump’s withdrawal strategy forces real change. By reducing America’s footprint, it presses allies to act responsibly. For Malta, the signal is unmistakable. No more sheltering behind Italian guarantees or EU mechanisms while US taxpayers foot the wider bill. Britain and France hold nuclear weapons. Italy lies minutes away by sea or air. Russia’s inability to wipe out Ukraine highlights limited conventional risks to the rest of Europe. Local patrols and European ties can manage day-to-day needs.
America benefits most from this shift. Taxpayer dollars return to the States instead of supporting Malta’s minimal effort. Costly entanglements in Mediterranean crises shrink. The United States sheds the role of protector for nations that invest so little in collective defence. History favours this realism. America long preferred a balanced Europe, not one weakened by endless guarantees.
Critics fear signals to adversaries. They ignore reality. A self-reliant Malta would invest modestly in maritime strengths and niche capabilities. It need not rival superpowers, but it must stop depending on distant American support.
Malta tests the principle perfectly. Small, strategically placed between Europe and North Africa, yet emblematic of complacency. Ending the coddling costs America nothing. It redirects resources to US priorities. Malta and Europe grow stronger through ownership. The age of one nation carrying all burdens has passed. Each nation must put its interests first.