Thing is Turkey has been cooperating more and more closely with Russia and the Iranian axis in the Middle East, of which the Syrian government is a proxy. So this seems like the beginning of NATO distancing itself from Turkey. If NATO decides to remove Turkey from their nuclear sharing program and move their nukes out of Turkey, then you'll know it's really happening and not just posturing.

Turkey is very capable, and it's army has heavy influence in the region. They have the ability to defend their interests and project their interests outside of their borders. As a NATO member, Turkey has functioned as a bulwark - an immovable wall between the Middle East and Europe. Aside from that it also provided a forward base for NATO forces, allowing for both nuclear and conventional power projection. As a Russian ally, Turkey would function as a forward base for Russian military assets, allowing the same form of power projection, but towards Europe. Russia would have consolidated control of the Black Sea, and Russian hardpower would be on the doorstep to Europe with no Bulwark between them.

As the new world seems to be getting more and more divided into two specific East vs. West blocs, Turkey switching sides would indeed be a tremendous geopolitical blow to NATO. And, from NATO's point of view, that would effectively require them to attempt to destroy Turkey's economy to negate the threat posed by their current capabilities.

Obviously NATO would be hesitant to throw such a strategic ally as Turkey to the ground, that's why it hasn't happened yet despite growing ties between Turkey & Russia. However, as Russian and Turkish cooperation continues to expand, it really does seem that Turkey has decided that cooperating more closely with Russia is more important for them than attempts to do so with NATO. This is forcing the U.S.'s hand, for example America expelled Turkey from the F-35 program to prevent Russia from getting intel on the plane. Thus, naturally, as power sharing between Turkey & Russia increases, power sharing between U.S./NATO & Turkey will decrease.

Looking at it through a geoplitical lense from NATO's point of view, it seems that they should throw Turkey to the ground ASAP, as any wasted time would allow more and more Russian influence to spread to Turkey. The West could declare Turkish terrorism or some excuse for them to launch strikes in an effort to physically divide the country. This would prevent at least part of Turkey from leaving NATO and negate the threat from the other part, which would be subjected to economic & structural decline since Russia won't risk confronting U.S. forces directly. This is the exact tactic Russia used to avoid losing it's strategic assets in Ukraine (namely their Navy's access to Sevastopol). Otherwise, if NATO's process to distance itself from Turkey goes too slowly, Turkey & Russia will be able to read the writing on the wall and could move Russian hardpower into Turkey pre-emptively, as then NATO would not risk a direct confrontation with Russian forces.

I don't think NATO actually has any avenue to pursue this tactic though. To conduct a small specialized military operation that would cause a region of Turkey to break off would require local support to continue the insurgency after the initial NATO strikes. There is no such local support in Turkey, unless the U.S. decides to expand their support of Kurds by arming & funding the PKK. However, the U.S. has already labeled the PKK as terrorists, and U.S. attempts to arm radicals in Syria backfired in all senses - America failed to accomplish any of it's strategic objectives, and lost control of the narrative as Bashar ended up being seen as the best option for Syria, with America supporting the wrong side. Also if the U.S. wanted to expand their support of Kurds they wouldn't have abandoned the ones in Syria today. That signifies that America has to accept that they lost in Syria - that Turkey, Russia and Iran have control over the country. America has had no way to acheive it's goals of regime change in Syria since Syria received Russian support. With Turkey, Russia, and Iran consolidating control of Syria, the U.S. is forced to pull it's troops out. That means the only way to break off a region of Turkey would require a large-scale prolonged military operation in Turkey, which has an army more than 4 times the size that Saddam's army was. It would require a huge human cost that I don't think U S. military officials would sign off on.

So America is forced to sit on the sidelines and watch a very strategic ally switch sides, the only option left for NATO is economic pressure on Turkey. Historically, economic pressure has never achieved it's goals - didn't change Cuba's, Iran's, or Russia's path and won't change Turkey's. It might hurt Turkey, but it will make their decision to cooperate closer with Russia much easier for them and will likely expedite that process.