The relative decline of U.S. hegemony and the intensifying great power rivalry between the U.S.-led Euro-Atlantic alliance and the Sino-Russian axis have reshaped the geopolitical dynamics in Eurasia, prompting regional actors to reassess their geostrategic orientations. Among these actors, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) has emerged as an increasingly influential regional alliance, consolidating cooperation among Turkic nations and pursuing strategic autonomy in response to intensifying great power competition.
The OTS, composed of full members Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkiye, and Uzbekistan, alongside observer states Hungary, Turkmenistan, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), has undergone a significant transformation. It has evolved from a cultural organization into a powerful political, economic, and security bloc. By leveraging its strategic geographic position, rich natural resources, and shared cultural identity, the OTS navigates great power rivalry while pursuing both strategic autonomy and regional influence. This evolution reflects the broader strategy of the Turkic states to maintain political independence and strengthen regional autonomy while avoiding over-reliance on either the Sino-Russian axis or the U.S.-led Euro-Atlantic alliance.
From a “Unipolar Moment” Toward a Multipolar International System
Historically, the international system has undergone cyclical shifts, characterized by the rise and fall of civilizations and hegemonic powers. In this inherently anarchic system, where no central authority regulates state behavior and power is unevenly distributed, states act as rational actors pursuing their interests. Stability is maintained when a dominant state leads the global order, but as rising powers challenge this dominance, such as China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony, conflict and instability become more likely, reflecting the dynamics of great power competition. In this rivalry, great powers vie for dominance over strategic regions, energy resources, supply routes, and critical sectors like politics, economics, military capabilities, and technological innovation to shape the international system to their advantage.
The “unipolar moment” that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked an era of unprecedented U.S. global hegemony. During this period, U.S. dominance shaped the liberal international order, promoting democracy, free markets, international institutions, and global governance, effectively “creating the world in its own image.” However, by 2017, the global order began shifting toward a multipolar configuration as emerging powers like China and Russia increasingly challenged U.S. dominance. The presidency of Donald Trump marked a significant shift in U.S. grand strategy, steering away from liberal hegemony and internationalism toward a focus on restraint, retrenchment, and the containment of rising powers, particularly China.
This great power competition was formalized in the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, marking a shift in U.S. foreign policy from counterterrorism to strategic rivalry with China and Russia, which were labeled as a “strategic competitor” and “revisionist power,” respectively. In response, China, as an emerging great power, adopted a defensive foreign policy strategy, as outlined in its 2019 defense doctrine.
The relative decline of U.S. hegemony, alongside intensified great power rivalry, has had significant regional implications for Eurasia, creating a strategic opportunity for the OTS.
The Rise of the Organization of Turkic States
Initially founded as the Turkic Council in 2009 through the Nakhchivan Agreement, the OTS was established as an intergovernmental organization to promote cultural and economic cooperation, while strengthening historical and linguistic ties among Turkic-speaking nations.
However, the organization has gradually expanded its scope to include political and security cooperation, reflecting the broader strategic ambitions of the Turkic states. In 2021, the organization was formally rebranded as the Organization of Turkic States during the Istanbul Summit, marking a key turning point in its transformation from a primarily cultural entity to a comprehensive political, economic, and security alliance, bound by shared history, language, and culture.
The Second Karabakh War marked a turning point for Turkic unity, evolving the concept of “one nation, two states” into broader regional cooperation among Turkic nations. The 2021 Shusha Declaration between Azerbaijan and Turkiye, which solidified military and political ties, symbolized this growing unity. Azerbaijan’s victory in the war, achieved with substantial military support from Turkiye, not only reinforced Turkic solidarity but also showcased the increasing geopolitical influence of the Turkic world at the expense of great powers like Russia.
Furthermore, the Turkic World Vision 2040, adopted during the 2021 Istanbul Summit, laid the groundwork for long-term strategies aimed at building a stronger, more integrated, and united Turkic world. Recent initiatives, such as attempts to adopt a common Turkic alphabet and enhance cooperation in energy and trade, reflect this strategic vision.
The gradual institutionalization of regional security cooperation, economic integration, and cultural and linguistic unity among Turkic states is creating a strategic opportunity to establish a cohesive Turkic sphere of influence across Eurasia, positioning it as a stabilizing force amid global power shifts.
Strategic Autonomy: A Balancing Act
Strategic autonomy has emerged as the regional response of the OTS to the intensifying great power competition. As the global order shifts, Turkic states are increasingly adopting a model of strategic autonomy, leveraging their unique geopolitical position to maintain a balanced approach between the Sino-Russian axis and the U.S.-led Euro-Atlantic alliance. This balancing act reflects the geopolitical implications of rising multipolarity, where the OTS seeks to assert its influence while avoiding over-reliance on any single great power bloc.
Strategic autonomy can be analyzed through two key focus areas: first, Turkiye’s proactive and independent foreign policy, which adeptly balances its NATO membership with its engagements in the Sino-Russian sphere; and second, the gradual shift of other Turkic states, such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, away from Russia-oriented foreign policies, signaling a broader move toward greater regional independence.
Turkiye stands as a prime example of strategic autonomy among OTS members. Its independent foreign policy is exemplified by the procurement of the S-400 missile system from Russia, despite objections from its Western allies, while still relying on the Euro-Atlantic security framework. Despite being a NATO member, Turkiye faces regional tensions with the U.S., particularly in the Middle East region and the eastern Mediterranean, while also pursuing membership in BRICS and consistently advocating for reform of the international system, particularly the U.N. Security Council, through its well-known slogan, “the world is bigger than five.”
Similarly, Turkiye maintains strong economic ties with China while voicing concerns over the mistreatment of the Turkic Uyghur minority. Despite its geopolitical clashes with Russia over conflicts in Syria, Libya, and Karabakh, Turkiye maintains strategic cooperation with Russia in key areas such as energy, trade, economic relations, and military defense. Turkiye facilitated one of the largest prisoner exchanges between the United States and Russia since the end of the Cold War, showcasing its ability to operate as an independent regional power.
Turkiye’s foreign policy in the Russia-Ukraine conflict further exemplifies its balancing act. Turkiye condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supported U.N. resolutions against Russia, yet refrained from joining U.S. and EU sanctions against Russia. Turkiye supplied Ukraine with Bayraktar TB2 drones, which became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion. On the other hand, Turkiye has positioned itself as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, hosting several rounds of peace talks, spearheading diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict, and playing a pivotal role in mediating the Ukraine-Russia grain deal.
The second key focus area in analyzing the strategic autonomy of OTS members is the gradual shift of post-Soviet Turkic nations away from Russia-oriented foreign policies.
Azerbaijan has played a catalytic role in this shift, notably through its victory in the Second Karabakh War and the 2021 Shusha Declaration, which formalized its defense ties with Turkiye. The Karabakh victory, achieved with significant Turkish military support, highlighted Azerbaijan’s growing strategic autonomy by balancing its relations with both Russia and Turkiye, signaling a shift away from Moscow’s traditional dominance. Azerbaijan’s energy diplomacy has also reduced Europe’s reliance on Russian energy through projects like the Southern Gas Corridor, positioning Azerbaijan as a key player in regional energy security. Despite these shifts, Azerbaijan maintains pragmatic relations with Russia, avoiding direct confrontation while strengthening ties with Turkiye and other Turkic nations.
Other Turkic states, such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan are also pursuing multi-vector foreign policies, seeking alliances beyond Russia. Despite being members of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have refused to recognize the Russian-backed separatist regions in Ukraine and supported Azerbaijan against another CSTO member, Armenia, signaling their growing independence from Moscow. Kazakhstan’s 2020-2030 Foreign Policy Concept emphasizes a balanced and pragmatic approach, aligning more closely with Turkic and Western partners while maintaining relations with Russia and China.
Uzbekistan’s shift from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet is emblematic of its desire to distance itself from Russian influence and foster stronger ties with Turkic nations. This linguistic change is part of a broader cultural and political realignment, signaling Uzbekistan’s commitment to asserting its national identity and integrating with the global and Turkic-speaking world.
Across the Turkic states, there is a collective movement away from Russian influence, particularly in diplomatic, cultural, and economic matters. While Russia remains a significant security partner for countries like Kyrgyzstan, there is a clear trend toward diversifying security and economic partnerships, with Turkiye offering a crucial alternative. This shift reflects the broader geopolitical balance that these states seek to maintain amidst great power competition.
Opportunities and Challenges for the OTS
As great power competition and global instability intensify, Central Asia, referred to historically as Turkestan (a name shift that Turkiye has made recently in its national history curriculum), with its abundant natural resources and strategic position as a bridge between Europe and Asia, is poised to become a key geopolitical battleground for major powers. The OTS has capitalized on this moment, positioning itself as a significant regional player by deepening cooperation across sectors such as energy, trade, and security.
The shifting regional dynamics resulting from great power competition, particularly the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, have created a strategic opportunity for the OTS to strengthen regional cooperation and assert its autonomy.
Despite the OTS’s growing influence, significant challenges remain. Russia continues to wield substantial influence over post-Soviet Turkic states, and the organization’s momentum is closely tied to current geopolitical conditions, particularly the war in Ukraine. Increased Russian influence could undermine the OTS’s strategic appeal. Simultaneously, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has expanded Beijing’s economic presence in Central Asia, further complicating the region’s economic and political dynamics.
To navigate these external pressures, the OTS must preserve its strategic autonomy by avoiding over-reliance on any single great power, focusing instead on deepening internal cohesion and consolidating its political, economic, and military collaboration. Moreover, the organization’s long-term success will depend on continued leadership, particularly from Turkiye, and the ability of member states to align their foreign policies despite domestic challenges such as political instability in some member states.