In a battle, you make a plan.
Then, roughly four seconds after contact with the enemy, your plan is ruined and you have to improvise. You keep an objective in mind but change the means you're approaching that objective almost as often as possible.
Africans lose wars because they're great at improvising and can't organize an army to improvise with. They have mobs. Sometimes the mobs are armed. It doesn't work very well.
Asians lose wars because they're superb at organizing armies and logistics, and can't improvise worth a damn. They have to fight the Traditional way or, at best, get approval from their commander and their commander's commander and his commander's commander and consider politics and whether the court ladies would have a fit. By which time the battle is over, never mind the tactical situation that raised the problem in the first place.
Europeans win wars because they're orderly enough to have proper armies, but not so orderly they can't improvise anymore. Unlike Africans, they can conform, but unlike Asians they don't have to conform.
P.S. Arabs pray to Allah to win the battle for them and/or clean their guns for them, Allah says, "God helps those who help themselves," they don't listen, and then they lose. Gnon finds this endlessly entertaining.
P.P.S. One European problem is they're self-aware of their warfighting supremacy, and they enjoy it so much they keep starting wars with each other, which, since they're both good at it, both sides reliably lose. They could instead pick fights they would win, but apparently don't see much appeal in the opportunity.