This is about https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/73161/how-could-the-nato-membership-of-turkey-and-the-usa-be-ended which was deleted just a few hours after coming to life - much too fast, it should have survived as a mere duplicate instead.
Since it was deleted so that it cannot be read anymore, here is the quote:
How could the NATO membership of Turkey and the USA be ended?
NATO once had the aim of integrating Russia in the end. Only the USA pushed NATO against Russia. The USA has been the main partner of Turkey for a long time. Turkey is against the sanctions of Sweden and therefore complains about its planned membership although it is strange that Turkey is in NATO at all.
Without the Russian aggression in Ukraine, it would seem more natural - historically and future-wise - to have a European alliance with Russia against Turkey than the other way round. It is clear from the Turkish complaints about Swedish membership that NATO "should not need" Turkey. There should be more sanctions against Turkey. Have a look at the Turkish actions of the near and far history: their stand against Armenia, Turkey is still occupying Northern Cyprus and is itself an occupant historically. The Turkish political and also many more informal statements show a lot more.
As for the USA: they are a promoter of many wars, they do not have any long-time roots in their own country (apart from the indigenous tribes), have high heterogeneity of the people and seem to need enemies to find out who they are.
Since the USA is a long-term aggressor in the world and Turkey an aggressor in many unsolved stories: what would be needed to end the NATO membership of Turkey and the USA?
This question is not about whether it would be a wise decision. It is about how this could be done politically.
Comments below the deleted question
This question is not in favour of Russia, yet, a comment shows that this was misunderstood as a question in favour of Russia's actions in the Ukraine. The comment below the question shows that this was not understood:
It is not natural for me to make an alliance with a country that awards war crimes.
The other comment also does not understand that the USA are not a normal people and therefore do not follow the normal patterns of identity. They compensate their lack of identity by searching for enemies. While the comment stresses that 400 years is a long time, it should be easy to see why this is not at all the point.
"[The USA] do not have any long-time roots in their own country" - that depends on your definition of "long-time". They've been there for over 400 years now, and I personally would class that as a "long time" by cultural standards. "[The USA] have high heterogeneity of the people" - and that's a problem why, exactly?
Search for a better second question
The question meant that the USA are a long-time driver against Russia, which can be an indirect trigger for the things that have come afterwards. This is a hypothetical way to look at it: if the USA had not done this, the events of today had rather not happened. I want to ask the question again, in a better understandable form, and also at best by stressing something else so that it does not become a duplicate. It should be about the problematic members USA and Turkey, though. The only way to change the NATO would be to found a new treaty of all nations but those two, see On what grounds can NATO remove a member state from the organisation?. Can anyone tell how to put the question with less likelihood that the question gets deleted again, and without making it a duplicate?