If Europe doesn’t adapt quickly, it risks being ‘carved up’ as it once did to Africa

Europe suffered a humiliation when a US-Russia summit was recently convened to discuss the future of Ukraine, a European nation, in the absence of any European representation. Nonetheless, if the continent draws the right lessons, it can be the first step in a painful but necessary process of reform. However, if it vacillates or doubles down on its existing worldview, the bleeding will continue. In February 1885, almost exactly 140 years before the conclusion of last week’s US-Russia summit in Riyadh, the world’s colonial powers met in Europe to discuss the “rules of the game” for carving up Africa . The Berlin Conference was notable for the absence of any African representation, making the continent’s natives justifiably feel insulted. In those days, the shoe was very much on the other foot for Europe as nations such as France, Germany and Italy had the power to determine the fate of millions of people without needing to even acknowledge their existence, let alone offer them a seat at the table. Unfortunately, it took the 19th-century European powers 70 years and two world wars to learn some key lessons from that conference: the need for inclusive diplomacy; the dangers of prioritising power politics over ethics; the risks of fixating on short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability; the futility of ignoring nationalism and self-determination; the importance of multilateralism over bilateral carve-ups; and perhaps most saliently, the role of economic exploitation in fuelling conflicts. The establishment of the UN in 1945 represented an attempt at codifying these principles lest they be forgotten by future generations. While there is some intriguing symmetry between Berlin 1885 and Riyadh 2025, the lessons that Europeans need to learn are markedly different. In the late 19th century, they were guilty of excessive greed and callousness. In contrast, today, one of the Europeans’ biggest missteps has been to take peace for granted and failing to understand how to deter conflict. For more than a decade, US President Donald Trump has been critical of European nations for not spending more towards their collective defence, and for their over-reliance on Washington. Some European nations were indignant at being scolded publicly; others acknowledged the veracity of Mr Trump’s accusations. Even the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war three years ago failed to spur all the continent’s countries into action on the issue of domestic arms manufacturing. A second important lesson pertains to the need to be willing to play international policeman if international law is to be genuinely respected. European countries believe in international law at the level of personal values. Moreover, if a European decides to violate international law, their local courts will hold them accountable. But the same is not true of most other countries. And while the US may have been willing to operate as a highly patchy enforcer of international law at various points over the past five decades, times have changed. The post of chief of police is definitely vacant. Leaders on the continent need to understand that the only way for international law to continue to be effective is for them to enforce it with a well-equipped armed force. Economic sanctions or finger wagging are insufficient. A final lesson is potentially the most uncomfortable one, as it involves people having to change their worldview in a way that seems contrary to their most cherished principles. Advancing the fight against climate change and promoting western notions of human rights have been twin pillars of European foreign policy for decades, leading to slower progress in relations with important global players. In the 21st century, the benefits that Europeans get from prioritising these values are considerably fewer than they once were. The most salient illustration of this is in the energy domain, where the removal of Russian gas from their list of imports leaves them with a combination of expensive and insecure clean energy and cheap and polluting fossil fuel energy as the alternatives. Similar tough choices exist in other areas, such as military spending. All this means that nuclear power as well as petrochemicals need to be back on the table, at least in the short and medium terms. Those who continue to insist on fairy-tale policy positions need to step away. The bottom line is that the rosy picture of Europe anchoring a green, virtuous world needs to be consigned to the intellectual wastebasket, and politicians who are used to imagining themselves as morally superior to the world need to play the new hand they have been dealt. Otherwise, Europeans risk sitting on the sidelines at future summits that carve up their continent into global spheres of influence. After all, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.