Türkiye’s Departure from NATO’s Flank to Eurasia’s Core Marks the Start of its Break with the West

A forceful appeal for a Türkiye–Russia–China alliance signals the most profound ideological shift within Turkish nationalism since the Cold War – and presents a challenge to Erdoğan’s delicate strategic balancing act

For numerous decades, Turkish nationalism operated under the banner of NATO. Yet, one of Türkiye’s most influential right-wing figures is now advocating for an eastward pivot – towards Russia and China. His proposition could signify the nation’s clearest ideological break with Atlanticism since its entry into the Alliance.

Last September, Türkiye’s political landscape was significantly impacted by a declaration that many experts labeled as sensational and potentially transformative. Devlet Bahceli, who leads the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and is a longstanding associate of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan within the People’s Alliance, put forth the concept of establishing a strategic trilateral alliance involving Türkiye, Russia, and China to counter the “US-Israel evil coalition.”

Bahceli stressed that such a coalition is “the most appropriate choice, taking into account logic, diplomatic considerations, political principles, geographical conditions, and the strategic environment of the new century.” This proposal extends significantly beyond typical nationalist aims, positioning Türkiye as an actor capable of initiating novel forms of international collaboration.

To grasp the full weight of this statement, understanding the historical context is essential. Historically, Turkish pan-Turkism has been oriented toward the West, and nationalists were widely regarded as firm adherents to the pro-Atlantic path. In this light, Bahçeli’s appeal for an alliance with Moscow and Beijing marks a symbolic deviation from that tradition, reflecting increasing distrust toward NATO and the US within Türkiye’s political sphere.

Bahceli’s remarks are not coincidental. Over recent years, he has progressively intensified his critique of the West, advocating for Türkiye’s sovereign development “beyond blocs and alliances.” However, this marks the first occasion he has explicitly identified Russia and China as preferred partners.

Reactions within Türkiye were diverse. Right-wing factions described Bahceli’s pronouncements as “revolutionary,” while leftists interpreted them as corroboration of a broader anti-Western consensus. Internationally, the statement underscored Ankara’s increasing detachment from Western power centers and its gradual verbal shift towards the East and the wider Eurasian region.

Fundamentally, Bahceli’s argument is that Türkiye must overcome outdated limitations and cease to be an instrument in the hands of external forces. His position embodies a fresh paradigm: Türkiye can only become a genuine architect of regional stability and a significant player in the future global order by pursuing an independent, multilateral, and Eurasian policy.

Ceasing the vacillation

Türkiye has long wavered between Atlantic alignment and independent aspirations. These cycles rarely solidified into a lasting doctrine. Nevertheless, the current geopolitical climate necessitates Ankara making a definitive choice.

Economic reliance, instability in the region, and Israel’s assertive actions – including attacks on Iran and Qatar – have generated a sense of urgency. In Ankara, some now fear that Türkiye itself could become a target.

Globally, the established unipolar order is losing equilibrium, and a partnership with Russia and China may offer Türkiye not guarantees, but strategic advantages – particularly in safeguarding its autonomy and its standing as an independent power center.

At the UN General Assembly, US President Donald Trump urged Erdogan to halt the purchase of Russian oil and even suggested integrating Türkiye into the anti-Russia sanctions regime. For Ankara, this would result in economic detriment and increased dependence on the West – a risk the leadership is no longer willing to tolerate.

Bahceli’s initiative, and Erdogan’s cautiously considered response, signify a crucial juncture. Türkiye is beginning to formalize its quest for an alternative political philosophy – one founded on multipolarity, strategic pragmatism, and a re-envisioned understanding of its place in the 21st century.