Although absurd and tragic, this message encapsulates a certain distaste for NATO: a periphery rejecting the call of the hegemon. The very idea of NATO crystallizes what he detests. It is a historical anomaly, an asymmetrical liberal alliance in which the great power encourages certain behaviors among smaller nations by offering them a channel to influence U.S. foreign policy (Burton, 2012, p. 115; Béraud-Sudreau and Schmitt, 2024, p. 5). He wishes, if not to destroy it, to alter its terms to turn it into a coercive alliance.

To do so, he exploits the disparity in power among allies to ensure the dominance of the strongest over the weakest. It would be wrong to overlook the vengeful and punitive intentions behind his statements and those of his advisors. On more than one occasion, they have implied that the United States could make its military commitment contingent on the adoption of certain political policies in Europe. Everything is being done and will be done to force European countries to accept a structurally unequal relationship, or even to punish them in the event of resistance. Abandoning them outright remains, in the long run, a viable option if they persist in their refusal.

This is why it cannot be ruled out that the United States might seek to disengage from NATO in favor of bilateral agreements—both economic and military—that would allow it to maximize its power asymmetry on a country-by-country basis, thereby shielding itself from any collective retaliation. Some will argue that it is in no way in the President’s interest, nor that of his nation, to do so. After all, Europe remains one of the pillars of American power. They are right, but they may also be making the mistake of projecting a modicum of rationality onto an actor who is, at best, irrational. No doubt we do this to reassure ourselves, to make someone fundamentally chaotic seem predictable: to paraphrase the historian André Loez, he is not the new Machiavelli, but an old man convinced he is a genius—even though the fairies of intelligence, prudence, justice, and temperance clearly bypassed his cradle.

Strictly speaking, the article “American Techno-Thrillers as a Stage for World War: What Role for NATO?” does not address the issue of stupidity fostered by an echo chamber in politics. Rather, the aim was to examine how the Alliance is portrayed during the political and moral ordeal that a Third World War would entail. On this point, the final section is perhaps the most relevant. We drew on Stephen Walt’s work on the future of alliances to contextualize three late-twentieth-century techno-thrillers depicting the demise of NATO: Lary Bond’s Cauldron, and Eric Harry’s ARC Light and Invasion. Considering current events, the first novel, published in 1993, is undoubtedly the most interesting, not for the author’s foresight, but for the accuracy of his observations on the role of leaders. Below is a summary of the work excerpted from the article:

“A financial crisis erupts in Europe in 1993. Riots break out as the crisis takes hold. Much to the chagrin of the United States, the French and German governments implement protectionist measures to end it, but these measures only make the situation worse, as a recession sets in. Tensions between the former allies, against the backdrop of a trade war, lead to the dissolution of NATO. To capitalize on this new political reality, France—now under the control of an authoritarian leader—and Germany form an economic and military alliance that subjugates the CEECs. War breaks out against the United States shortly thereafter: France, abandoned by all, loses the war and undergoes a regime change, from the Fifth to the Sixth Republic” (Cholet, 2026, p.78).