Calls For U.S. Withdrawal From NATO Increase As Americans Question Its Purpose

Future Martian, billionaire social media mogul and head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk has openly called for the withdrawal of the United States from NATO, joining Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and other members of congress as the Cold War alliance has begun to be openly questioned by the American public.

And although there are old-guard Republicans like conservative radio-host Mark Levin who strongly believe in the alliance and support all of America's overseas empire-building conquests, simply reading the comments section to their social media posts show that their audiences clearly do not.

Many Americans, primarily in the MAGA movement, have begun to question whether or not being in NATO truly serves the needs of the United States - and by extension, whether or not the alliance is really in the best interests of humanity at all.

Let's take a closer look at this matter, shall we?

NATO was created primarily to defend Europe from the possibility of a communist Soviet conquest, and by extension, the United States. It was a counter-weight to the vast Russian-Soviet empire and its satellite states, born in a spirit of unity and self-preservation in the aftermath of World War II. Much has changed since its inception, and the Soviet Union no longer exists. And yet, NATO has more than doubled its size and now involves almost all of Europe as it has stridently advanced right up to Russia's borders.

What for? To protect the United States - or Europe? Certainly the desire of former Soviet States to retain their independence is understandable - but at what cost to the world?

Is being part of a great alliance that is, by it's very nature, antagonistic to the very existence of the world's greatest nuclear power, the best way to achieve this end?

And is 21st century Russia truly interested in conquering Europe à la Hitler or Napoleon?

You'd think that if Russia was so concerned about imperialistic ambitions, they never would have let the Soviet Union peacefully break into numerous nations in the first place. Certainly they had the fire power to maintain it if they had wanted to.

And while it's true that Putin has called the break-up of the former Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century," and has certainly used his military to project Russian strength and protect Russian interests, to conclude that it is his desire to wage war and re-conquer all the former Soviet territories (and then some) honestly seems a bit hysterical.

Understand that victories can be obtained through peace, diplomacy, and trade - not just war, conquest and bloodshed. The emergence of the Russian-headed Eurasian Union (an economic group of former Soviet States) shows just that. As well as BRICS. And never forget that Putin asked if Russia could join NATO at one point, and was flatly rejected - strong evidence that the entire point of the organization is to keep a foot on Russia's neck.

So just who is the antagonist here? How can such an organization as NATO continue to exist without keeping Russia its eternal enemy?

It can't.

In fact, if Russia is to ever not be the enemy, the nature of NATO has to either fundamentally change, or it has to be dismantled altogether.

Russia doesn't need endless wars, and certainly no one needs major world war between nuclear powers. What everyone needs is simply peace and prosperity.

But unfortunately, it seems as though there are powerful people who benefit from having the scapegoat of an eternal enemy in the form of Russia.

And so this becomes more about profits and politics than actual security.

Profits for the military industry, all its contracting companies, all of the politicians who support them and receive pay-outs and benefits, and political benefits from always having someone to blame or a diversionary crisis to distract voters from problems at home.

But let us remember that vast military alliances don't necessarily prevent wars.

Let us remember that World War I was triggered by military alliances of such nature.

So vast military alliances simply create larger wars when war does break out.

We certainly don't need larger wars.

In fact, I'd say it's highly preferable to have smaller wars here and there than large ones that disrupt the entire world and kill millions of people.

And certainly smaller wars can be largely prevented through wise diplomacy and strategic armoring as well, couldn't they?

Take the Baltic States, for instance. They would have been wiser to arm themselves to the hilt and remain out of NATO, while maintaining good relations with both the West and Russia, than to simply join the NATO alliance.

But now as part of the NATO alliance, they are bound to the interests, objectives, intrigues and dangers of the entire alliance - and they are first in line to be attacked should situations with Russia become hostile.

Hardly as beneficial for them as they might have thought.

And here they are, amongst the loudest of the barking NATO dogs calling for wider war with Russia because they feel brave under the umbrella of the West.

And yet NATO's commitment to the Baltic States is questionable at best. Sure, they make a show of public support. But the resolve to die for Estonia amongst the rest of Europe is surely very little and would wear out before long.

Estonia would have been better off remaining neutral, armed, and reasonable.

And so would have Ukraine.

And the great tragedy is that it has taken a horrible war for them to begin to figure this out.

Will Americans figure it out before it's too late?

Surely NATO has served a purpose, but with a quarter of the 21st century behind us and the collapse of the Soviet Union being 34 years ago, the world has changed and an honest evaluation of whether or not America's interests are being served in being part of NATO is long overdue.