Just a nit to pick with your title.

Yeah, it's a globalist alliance, but we need to understand NATO as more than that. During the Cold War, NATO was the offset of Soviet and Eastern European power under the Warsaw Pact. But after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, NATO did not dissolve with the Warsaw Pact. It was still useful to the powers that be. Why?

1. Remember that a large base of the globalist movement is in Europe, specifically ultra-wealthy European communists (think Klaus Schwab, Gyorgi Soros, etc). Their broad vision was to slowly unite various countries using interlocking trade dependencies and alliances. By intertwining the economies, it would make them so dependent on the larger network that they could not afford to leave. This is how the EU came into being, and the plan was to set up such alliances across the globe, slowly gobbling up nations until the major alliances could be merged into one transnational unit. And because it had access to all the trade networks and economic potential, naturally, a global government would be needed to manage it (Marxism 101). The current flood of Hispanics into the US was part of that plan. 100 million would be displaced into the US and Canada to drown out the Anglo-Saxon influence, unify North America, and then the entire Western hemisphere, and eventually merge it with Europe... and to do it in such a way that the people themselves accept and support it.

2. The globalists had invested decades in the EU project as a means of destroying Europe's nations. NATO meant they could continue to fund their popular social programs (short work weeks, early retirement, generous pensions, etc) while America provided their defense at no charge. It freed up huge chunks of their budget, but also cemented in the minds of Europeans that they didn't need an army and shouldn't invest in one. They were being actively acclimated to not having any kind of real national army. Sure, they had little volunteer forces of professionals, but nothing like what fought during the world wars. And such interests were actively discouraged among young men. NATO allowed the EU project to progress under its protection.

3. NATO (ie, the US military guarding Europe) allowed the globalists both a carrot and a stick. When new nations signed up to join the EU, NATO membership got discussed and typically offered right along with it. "Join us and the Americans will pay for your defense too" was the sales pitch and to broke, post-communist countries who simply could not afford it, that was a very tasty carrot. And to "enemies," however we defined them at that particular moment, they could count on NATO hurting them - and we did in Somalia, in the Balkans (former Yugoslavia), Iraq (twice), Libya, Syria, etc. Russia is still being actively threatened.

4. As the globalist vision metastasized, and I have to use that term because people mistakenly think the whole globalist plan is written in stone. It's not. It's idea-based and it evolves. As the plan metastasized over the next 30 years, they got bolder. In fact, they floated the idea of an EU army to formalize the idea. It was wildly unpopular. But NATO could serve the exact same function and be socially acceptable as the EU army, so they've kept it around. And now, with the BS "threat" from Russia, the idea is being even more firmly planted that NATO is not only a good idea, but a necessary one, for fear of Russia suddenly attacking.

In short: NATO is the globalist's army. Anything they need blown up, anyone they want taken out, etc, they dial up the US and some asshole like John Bolton makes the case for war. Our boys do the fighting and dying for our Zionist/communist overlords, and it will eventually provide the framework for the army of the one-world utopia they want to create.

Now you can understand why Trump threatening to make them pay and talking about dissolving the alliance is ruffling feathers. He's actively deconstructing the globalist project.