A quote from Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is circulating widely online (often in distorted forms) from her interview with Tg5 on March 2, 2026.
The essence: the attack by a permanent UN Security Council member (Russia) on a neighbor (Ukraine) has undermined international law and triggered all this chaos, including the situation with Iran. The main task now is to prevent the further spread of disaster…
There’s nothing to add here—Ukraine has been saying this since 2014. One of the most pragmatic points all this time has been the same one Europeans are now beginning to grasp: if aggression is not repelled and the aggressor punished, the costs will be far higher. The damage will exceed the aid Ukraine needs. Losses will be measured not only in money but also in the erosion of the European way of life.
That’s just the reality.
The emphasis on non-proliferation hits the nail on the head. The next stage is painfully banal and predictable.
In the context of Meloni’s statement, it is worth recalling another quote that world leaders are surely remembering now, watching live as Israel and the U.S. turn Tehran into ruins:
“…Each Party to this Treaty, in the exercise of its national sovereignty, has the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the content of this Treaty have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal three months in advance to all Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council. The notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events which it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests…”
This is the first part of Article 10 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was extended indefinitely in 1995.
What are we seeing now?
Taking advantage of a disagreement with the U.S., French President Emmanuel Macron has begun promoting the idea of creating a French nuclear umbrella over the EU. Several countries are already participating in consultations on this, including “respectable” ones such as Sweden. Recently, Macron stated that France will need more nuclear bombs to make this plan practical.
The nuance is that NATO already has a Nuclear Sharing program, dating back to 1965. Under this program, the U.S. stations B-61 nuclear bombs in Alliance countries (Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey), which formally remain under full U.S. control. Meanwhile, the allies provide dual-capable aircraft (DCA) that could deliver these weapons. Russia has accused the U.S. of modernizing its nuclear arsenal in Europe and eroding non-proliferation norms.
However, for nuclear weapons to actually be used as a NATO collective action, the decision must be initiated by the Alliance’s Nuclear Planning Group and then sanctioned by the U.S. President and the U.K. Prime Minister. In contrast, the French President alone can decide to use nuclear weapons. This is the key difference in mechanisms.
In this context, Poland’s position is a litmus test, as I briefly mentioned. The Poles cut through all this nuclear fog and reveal the essence of the moment.
Publicly, we see a sort of “discussion” between Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Karol Nawrocki’s office.
Tusk formally supports participation in the French project, but—attention—with the goal of maximizing Warsaw’s autonomy in the nuclear project.
Nawrocki’s office criticizes Tusk for opaque contacts with the French and emphasizes participation in NATO’s Nuclear Sharing program under U.S. auspices. Previously, Nawrocki stated that Poland should move toward its own nuclear bomb. Although this contradicts the NPT, Nawrocki admitted he doesn’t know how to circumvent these requirements.
The answer: there is no way. You can either violate the treaty or withdraw. Any workaround is simply a mask for withdrawal or violation.
I do not exclude the possibility that the statement from the presidential office is an attempt to soften a premature display of intentions. The reality, which all state leaders and top military officials fully understand, is that there can be no “autonomies” in nuclear weapons. Only complete control matters.
Will France use nuclear weapons against Russia if Poland is threatened? Never. The same goes for the U.S.—only if France or the U.S. themselves are threatened. But it’s too early to say that aloud. That’s why other words are used, gradually widening the “Overton window.”
We are now witnessing the gradual dismantling of the NPT. Macron is positioning for his political future after his term. Other actors are slowly stretching the boundaries, mentally preparing their populations.
It is worth recalling that in the winter of 2024, Russian strategist Sergei Karaganov outlined the Kremlin’s approach: Russia must DISTRIBUTE nuclear weapons to its allies. The pretext is “new deterrence,” because the previous model (nuclear weapons held by a few) doesn’t work.
This process was simulated in Belarus. The real targets are the UAE, mirror Egypt and Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and several other countries. Turkey is unlikely to stay on the sidelines. One marker is the construction of nuclear power plants by Rosatom. In these countries, only one step remains.
In one click, Sweden, Germany, and Japan could develop nuclear weapons. In Germany, there is an interesting political process in which the AfD aggressively seizes the nuclear agenda. For Japan, the issue is very sensitive, but perceptions could shift under international events.
Overall, this is a case of “they played with fire.” When no one wanted it, it happened anyway. Rolling it back would require collectively taking four steps back in a climate of widespread mutual distrust.
There are many scenarios, but in several instances the opinion has been expressed: the U.S. will create disorder and retreat overseas (already during or after Trump). Israel, however, has nowhere to retreat. And since no one wants to clash with the main troublemaker, the harm will be inflicted on those closer…
In short, Europe needs to make decisions. The boundaries are becoming transparent, and the worst of what once seemed impossible is already looming on the horizon.
