>>>Why?

So that we could focus 100% of our attention on stuffing the CCP Dragon back in a box before it's too late.

>>>Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation

Compare the strategic utility of Russia in our alliance (#2 nuclear power in the world, extremely large military, shares a border with China) with the strategic utility of the Baltic states. I'd rather have NATO-member Russian tank divisions positioned to attack China's naked rear, backed by Russian ICBMs, helping us. I would argue the US hasn't fought an industrial power out of its weight class.....ever. When we eventually fight the CCP, we're going against a nation that is embarrassing us with its shipbuilding capacity, has 4x the manpower to draw on, and will be operating with shorter logistical lines. We need Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines...all of them to help. We need the Russians to do this again: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria ), while the US Pacific Fleet and JMSDF sink the PLAN, with India/Vietnam/Korea providing basing for the US Air Force.

How does Estonia help us topple the only other Great Power on the planet? The only other serious challenger to US hegemony?

You make some very good points. But creating and maintaining a credible and safe nuclear deterrent is VERY expensive. I think the trick to convincing people they don't need it is to not go around invading other countries in the first place. Mexico doesn't have nukes despite the US easily having a half-dozen reasons it could trump up for "regime change". South Africa gave up their nuke program (I REALLY need to study this one, it's on my To-Do List). Right now we are witnessing Ukraine shatter the Russian military, a pretty good endorsement of conventional deterrence against invasion at least for everyone else who is concerned.