On December 2, distinguished scholars and European politicians gathered in Vienna to discuss Europe's future. Co-organised by Erste Foundation and the Institute for Social Science (IWM), this full-day summit was conceived as a moment of reflection on Europe’s geopolitical positioning amid accelerating global instability. 

Opening the summit, Austrian Minister for European and International Relations Beate Meinl-Reisinger warned that the international order is undergoing a profound transformation. “Across the world, we see the return of hard power that seeks to benefit the strong and punish the weak,” she said, pointing to the rise of illiberal and authoritarian movements. Europe, she argued, must strengthen its capacity to collaborate if it wishes to remain a political actor rather than a geopolitical object. “If Europe wants to speak with power, it needs to learn to speak with one voice.”

To connect scholarly work with the decision-making process, at this summit, politicians were responsible for asking questions, and scholars were to provide an analytical overview of the current geopolitical situation. 

Against this backdrop, one of the most closely watched discussions focused on the role of small states in a changing global order. 

The panel, moderated by Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, brought together former regional leaders and prominent scholars to address a question of growing relevance: how smaller countries can preserve agency in a world increasingly dominated by major powers.

This was an entirely new experience for Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has been involved in politics and in power for over twenty years. 

From the outset, however, the tone of the debate shifted. Opening the discussion, Rama employed a provocative metaphor, suggesting that “it is better to be sh%$ than small,” a remark implying the marginal relevance of small states in global decision-making. While consistent with the rhetorical style for which he is well known, the comment set a dismissive tone that contrasted with the analytical approach adopted by other participants.

Former Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg responded with humour but also with a more nuanced position. “Small is beautiful,” he said, arguing that smaller states often enjoy greater flexibility when it comes to reform. At the same time, he acknowledged that size remains a factor in foreign policy, noting that smaller countries must continuously recalibrate their position vis-à-vis larger powers and “go the extra mile” to make their voices heard internationally.

Nikola Dimitrov, former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of North Macedonia, placed leadership at the centre of the discussion. For small states, he argued, political competence is not optional. “Perhaps big states can afford mediocre leaders, but small states cannot,” Dimitrov said, adding that smaller countries must be led by policymakers who are both well prepared and capable of communicating effectively with major powers if they wish to translate diplomacy into tangible outcomes.

Scholars on the panel expanded the discussion beyond political rhetoric, situating the challenges of small states within broader structural transformations of the international system. 

Soli Özel, professor of international relations at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University, described the current period as a prolonged moment of global transition. “We are in another genesis moment that began in 2015, and we cannot see its end,” he said, emphasising that leadership choices become particularly consequential during periods of systemic uncertainty. As traditional anchors of global order weaken, Özel argued, small and middle powers are increasingly forced to hedge their alliances and prepare for difficult strategic trade-offs in what he described as an “asymmetric multipolar world.”

A similarly sober assessment was offered by Ivan Krastev, chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia. Small countries, he noted, rarely command attention on their own unless geography or crisis elevates their importance. As a result, many become “one-issue countries,” constrained by domestic and external limitations that reduce their strategic room for manoeuvre. “If they are not playing a big game,” Krakov observed, “they are not playing a game at all.”

The discussion sharpened when Rosa Balfour, an expert on European politics and security, raised Hungary as an example of the risks facing small states within the European Union. Highlighting the controversial use of veto power, she argued that“Hungary has sold its sovereignty to Russia, China, and maybe to the United States.” Her remarks prompted an immediate intervention from Rama, who challenged her assessment by pointing to what he described as European double standards in reactions to calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine, comparing the treatment of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán with that of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Balfour, however, broadened the critique beyond individual cases, arguing that Europe’s difficulties stem from a failure to defend the rule-based international order consistently. “We are living through a major backlash against the liberal world order,” she said, warning that the resurgence of authoritarianism would disproportionately affect small and middle powers, including the European Union itself.

Taken together, the summit highlighted a persistent gap between analytical diagnosis and political discourse in Europe. While scholars and several former policymakers articulated the structural vulnerabilities and strategic imperatives facing small states, moments of rhetorical dismissal, particularly by Mr Rama, risked obscuring the seriousness of those challenges. 

In an international environment marked by hardening power hierarchies and weakening norms, how Europe’s leaders frame the role of small states is more than a matter of style.

For small countries, rhetoric that minimises their relevance risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Time to Decide summit made clear that Europe’s challenge is not only institutional or geopolitical, but also discursive: whether its leaders are willing to engage with complexity, constraint, and responsibility with the gravity that the moment demands.