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?

3 Answers 3


I'm not sure why the question was deleted, maybe because some parts of the question can be perceived as offensive. In particular there's a bias about some kind of "natural legitimacy" of "homogeneous" countries which is borderline racist.

But about the main reason why the question is problematic and not a good fit for PoliticsSE, I think there's a simple explanation: it's science fiction.

NATO was created and is still by far largely supported by the US. The existence of NATO is completely linked to the US, since having the military protection of the US is certainly the main reason why many countries joined NATO. So this can't happen simply because most NATO countries don't want to get rid of the US at all, quite the opposite.

Only this makes the question completely subjective and opinion-based, since answers would have to speculate about a completely different world. Since questions which are primarily opinion-based are off-topic on PoliticsSE, I don't see how such a question could be accepted.

  • It is geopolitics in a historical dimension. Borderline racist or not is unimportant since this is about facts: there are homogenous, historically grown tribes and peoples and against this, "new" political heterogenous entities who do not and cannot have the same natural identity. It is easy to see that (un-/)naturally grown geopolitics explain the biggest part of the world's conflicts. To ask what Turkey has to do in the NATO comes from historical facts. And there is a reason why the right wing of Europe has been pro-Russian-anti-US since long, Science Fiction is not to see this, e.g. Le Pen.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 19, 2022 at 22:57
  • OK let's be clear: I just proposed a plausible explanation for the closure/deletion of your question, I'm not here to have a debate with you. Fyi it's not "unimportant" if a post is considered racist because it's against the code of conduct and therefore a motive for immediate deletion. About your argument, I would just say that it's based on the belief that (1) there exists some kind of "natural homogeneity" (genetic, ethnic, cultural, intellectual ??) between some groups and (2) that this criterion is the main reason for why things happen...
    – Erwan
    Commented May 20, 2022 at 9:48
  • .. happen a certain way. This is of course interpretative, there is no scientific basis for this.
    – Erwan
    Commented May 20, 2022 at 9:50
  • I get it, though this off-topic reason then might be at least a misleading censorship since this topic might influence politics, but it does not get named. Turning it around: it is unclear how to scientifically prove the opposite, meaning that there is no influence. There is barely any war or conflict that does not come from an imbalanced grouping or a lack of grouping when an empire gets too large or another empire without historical roots is involved. It is still rather an opinion, right. I lack the time to make it to a science level. Hard to make it to a valid Q/A then.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 21, 2022 at 22:04
  • Racism definitely influences politics and has caused a lot of violence in history (it still does). It is certainly possible to talk about it, but It's incompatible with inclusive, open-minded dialogue that's why racist behaviour is banned (not to mention various other reasons). Imho this is not the main problem with your question though: your question is about geopolitics in a different world where the US and NATO can be separated from each other. In the current world, they can't.
    – Erwan
    Commented May 22, 2022 at 10:30
  • The idea here was the other way round, it is to say that the absence of genetic, ethnic, cultural (, ...) homogeneity or the lack of striving for it led to many conflicts in the world. This is then bound to the land of origin where the homogeneities came from. A third party not involved would be the Ottoman Empire that took the Balkan states which then were taken back by non-Slavic Austria-Hungary which then led to a Pan-Slavic answer which then enforced Pan-Germanism. The third parties are the problem. The many wars of the USA show that lack of homogeneity can lead to aggressiveness.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 26, 2022 at 11:08
  • In short: more "racism" - in the innocent definition of keeping to where tribes homogenously belong - leads to less conflicts since it is all just about balance of power then, while a third party can destroy the balances of power.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 26, 2022 at 11:22
  • @ETathome as I said, this is not the place for such a debate. You can try asking a question on historySE if you want, but you'll have to make your question much more formal than this. Fyi it's clear that you would like to convince people of your ideas, but I doubt that SE is the right place for this: it's meant for asking questions about things we'd like to understand better, not for pushing an agenda.
    – Erwan
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 15:52
  • Yes, too much of a debate here. No, I am not following an agenda and I do not need to convince anyone. Looking at it from your point of view, it could be worse: the topic could just be true, that is enough to have a closer look at it also on Politics SE, not only on History SE.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 18:02
  • @ETathome I was talking about HistorySE if the question is about the causes of any war in history. Sure, you can ask a question on politicsSE, but do you actually have a question about this topic? It seems to me that you're interested in presenting your arguments, and this is not what PoliticsSE (or any SE site) is about. But there are many other places where political theories can be presented: political science journals, opinion columns in various publications, and numerous websites which are not about Q&A.
    – Erwan
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 18:46
  • That is this meta question about. I try to find a question that fits. I do not know the right question myself, I only want to get a non-deleted (and at best non-duplicate question) about the problematic role of Turkey and USA as "third parties by design", taking up the NATO and Ukraine news of these days, but rooting this in history. I want to get insights from answers about the arguments that I present, crititcism welcome, "no proof" is not enough. Insights up to now are that such questions are off-topic and a better question hard to find. This is also an insight.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 28, 2022 at 19:05
  • The link to the Buffalo shooting as an example that racism causes violence in history shows a misunderstanding. This shooting shows aggressions and identity problems that arise in heterogeneity, and it is on top of that an internal problem, while the topic in question saw the USA as a nation that need enemies to get over their lack of a clear inner identity. Taking your comment as a representitive thought from someone who tries to answer all of this neutrally as it seems, I fear that misunderstanding is the main driver for the topic to be pushed down on Politics SE.
    – ETathome
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 11:23
  • @ETathome which question? the "kicking the US out of NATO" is ignoring everything about history, geography and the current balance of powers between countries, as I explained. Even in these comments, you are more interested in arguing a point than asking anything, as far as I can tell. If you are interested of the question of "homogeneity", and btw you never defined this term in any way (genetic? ethnic? cultural? economic? geographic?...), you could ask something like for example "is there any evidence that genetic homogeneity correlates with a high level of violence/criminality?"
    – Erwan
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 15:48
  • As far as I understand what you're saying, you're trying to ask a question which relies on the assumption that "heterogeneity" is the main cause of wars/violence. Obviously this not going to work, unless there is evidence for the assumption itself.
    – Erwan
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 15:52
  • Btw assuming that other people are misunderstanding stuff and you're the only one who understands the true cause of things is not a good sign that you're interested in getting answers. About the Buffalo mass shooting, you're presenting an subjective interpretation as a fact. There are many countries which have a high ethnic diversity and don't have mass shootings at all. Diversity doesn't require people to kill each other, it's the fact that some people reject it which causes that.
    – Erwan
    Commented May 29, 2022 at 15:58

The question is filled with completely nonsensical, non-factual claims that it is using to build a massive strawman portraying the USA and Turkey negatively. None of these claims have any bearing on the title of the question, which makes the question appear to be nothing more than a bad-faith effort to smear the images of said countries.

It may not be overtly pro-Russian, but the fact that a question containing such remarks was posted at a time when Russia is actively involved in a massive propaganda campaign against NATO and its members, makes it very easy to interpret said question as being in service of Russia's attempts.

The question has merit for being answered here based on its title, but its body disqualifies it.

  • The USA are not a normal people. Their alliance with Turkey in the NATO is rootless. The US show identity problems that lead to their search for outer enemies. Senseless? Getting to the core of your answer, the question itself has the chance to be on-topic (just a duplicate then, not deleted). The body adds the "why" as well. It keeps the same question as in the header. Showing the background of why a question arises is best practice. This is not a strawman business, but rather a bitter insight. Answers like yours are twice a hint of why such questions get deleted. Still a good answer.
    – ETathome
    Commented Jun 11, 2022 at 20:10
  • The question is just a strawman. In reality, it is about the background. I am fine with any other question as long as it can show the background. I still think that a question that is a duplicate does not need to be deleted after three hours only since it is openly against Turkey and the USA, and therefore seems pro-Russian, although it just hints at the doubtfully aggressive long-term US policy against Russia - a point that is barely discussed.
    – ETathome
    Commented Jun 11, 2022 at 20:48

The USA and Turkey seem to be political partners in the sense that they both try to get their hands on land and people and thoughts as "third parties by design". Both try to steer more than what is in the boundaries of their roots.

A third party not involved would be the Ottoman Empire that took the Balkan states which then were taken back by non-Slavic Austria-Hungary which then led to a Pan-Slavic answer which then enforced Pan-Germanism, allowing for WW1. The third parties are the problem.

Or in another example, the Kurdish problem in Turkey comes to a good share from the fact that the Indo-European Kurds are the ancient people of the area, like the Indo-European Armenians, but the immigrated Turks are not.

There is wide acceptance for racism to be the trigger of war. There seems to be a wide acceptance that the opposite of racism avoids war. But looking at many political actions, it could often be the other way round, or at least that both racism and non-racism (when third parties conquer or influence land that does not belong to their "race" in the innocent sense of a long-term steady gene pool) can trigger war. When viewing racism in an innocent way in a sense that people just keep to their heritage and land ("their own business"), enemies will build a smaller part of the identity. Such tribes will strive less into the land of other tribes by war or migration, which again leads to less domino problems.

The call for scientific facts in politics when looking at this is therefore too broad. Actions and theories that are patterns in politics should be "politically scientific" enough. And on top of that, there might be some political science about this that is just not known. It is hard to prove a pattern when the opposite seems to be proven and fixed.

Moreover, it easily leads to misunderstandings when it comes to any thought of racism in an innocent form of "good homogeneity" in the sense of the historical roots, since the happenings of today of already heterogenous populations are mixed up with the historical view that this question is about, a hypothetical view at the homogenous times before such heterogeneity. For example, in a comment, the Buffalo shooting was named as to show that racism leads to violence, although in homogeneity, such a shooting would not happen - at least not for a racist reason. Instead, any such shooting shows the problem of nations with high heterogeneity, such shootings put more weigh on the thought that a lack of inner identity (and homogeneity) lead to the search for outer enemies to overweigh the inner enemities.

Therefore, it is unlikely to find a place for a question "against Turkey and the USA" (Turkey as a "third party problem" and the US as a "search for outer enemies problem") as members of the NATO that does not get deleted as speculative, too Russian-friendly (even if it is not) or otherwise off-topic.

  • You learn fast. I still believe truth is an offense to liars and thus above political correctness towards them. Commented May 31, 2022 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .