I first learned about the history of European colonization of Africa in middle school in Ghana. Britain ruled Ghana for more than a century before it became an independent nation in 1957. France, Portugal, Belgium and a few other European countries had their own colonies on the African continent.

Growing up in Ghana, I remember wondering how Britain and the other European colonial powers could rule the vast African continent from such distances. My only thought then was that these were mighty nations that few others on the planet could stand up to. That mental picture stayed with me well into my early adulthood.

I have a much better understanding of geopolitical hierarchies now. Even in the early 1970s when I started learning about the European powers, they were not as all-conquering as I thought. Today, with the rise of China, Europe’s influence on the world stage has diminished even further. In spite of all that, I am astonished by how powerless the Europeans appear to be today as they try to fend off some of the grave external threats they face.

I have a lot of sympathy for current European leaders. They must be exhausted just trying to keep up with President Trump’s numerous twists and turns on the war in Ukraine. Since the beginning of this year, they have spent enormous amounts of time and effort pleading with the U.S. to help defend Ukraine and the European continent against Russian aggression. President Trump’s response has been lukewarm at best. Two weeks ago, he set an ultimatum for Ukraine to respond within a few days to his 28-point peace plan. It appeared then that Europe might have to face the task on its own, without the weapons and the intelligence capabilities to do so.

According to Reuters, European leaders now fear that in his determination to end the war, President Trump will impose an “ugly deal” on Ukraine and Europe. They worry that his demand for territorial concessions from Ukraine will embolden Vladimir Putin and make it more likely that Russia will attack another European country in the near future. Europe is now boxed into a corner with limited ability to influence a deal, says Reuters, “not least because it lacks the hard power to dictate terms.”

Twice in the twentieth century, Britain and its European allies had opportunities to learn a crucially important lesson: that it was gravely unwise to pin so much of their hopes on America for their security. In both World War I and World War II, America’s entry came after two years of cajoling, and even then, external events forced it to. I have argued previously that the woeful failure of past European leaders to build up the continent’s defensive capabilities is nothing short of political malpractice. A continent with a collective nominal GDP of around $24 trillion is today allowing itself to be bullied by Russia, which has a nominal GDP of just about $2.5 trillion. This is a nation the late Senator John McCain derisively described as “a gas station masquerading as a country.”

French President Emmanuel Macron deserves enormous credit on this subject. He has correctly recognized the problem and for nearly a decade now, has been urging Europeans to seek “strategic autonomy” by increasing defense spending. He wants Europeans to “think of the EU as an entity concerned with security as much as economic issues.” President Macron’s calls were not taken sufficiently seriously initially, but it appears they are now gaining the appropriate level of attention in European capitals.

America’s tepid commitment to NATO comes at a particularly bad time. China, Russia, Iran and their allies are actively plotting to dismantle the rules-based world order and replace it with something modeled after their dictatorial forms of governance. The free world needs to get its act together quickly to counter this axis of autocracy. My hope is that Europe will not repeat its past mistakes. It needs to invest to make itself as powerful as I envisioned it when I was a young boy.