There is no telling whether Foreign Affairs Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu’s statement aimed at the “Asia Anew Policy” will be diligently discussed.

Most will want to sacrifice this policy to classical “Russian Eurasia-nism”; some will undermine it; and groups taken hostage by pro-Atlantic discourses will portray it as treachery.

Also of great significance was Çavuşoğlu describing this axis as one that conjoins the East and the West, without limiting it to Turkey’s strategics alone, and showing those who want to accuse Turkey of an “axial shift” that the real central axis is here.

This statement gives us clues of a new position Turkey has long been determinedly and persistently upholding; it is a new road map, its re-establishment, and a design of the future.

Security conflicts with the U.S., Turkey’s firm attitude towards interventions aimed at our region, pro-Atlantic circles openly threatening us, the showdown between those who are trying to take control over our country’s future again and those resisting against this; in short, we are undergoing a deep change from economy policies to security strategies.

We rediscovered our country. We rediscovered ourselves. We rediscovered our region and identity. What is more important, we made a decision that would never go under tutelage like in the 20th century.

The world’s center of gravity shifted away from the West. We took action right at this moment

We did it at a time when the Atlantic alliance’s unilateral global dominance ended, when a four-century-old power shift occurred, new powers and actors emerged, the balance of the East and West was shook, and the structural objections and challenges rose throughout the world against U.S.-EU dominance.

The world was now multi-polar; new political and economic areas had emerged, the world’s center of gravity was moving away from the West, the technology and capital gap between regions was closing, and the East was rising a lot faster in terms of defense and human resources.

Most importantly, it was a breaking point in history; power maps were being radically changed. As for Turkey, unilateral dependence on the West had become dangerous enough to lead the country to shrink.

Because as of today, all security threats aimed at our country are from the West and the result of their disposals in our region. What is more, similar to July 15 coup attempt, and the terror corridor in northern Syria, they were openly threatening and attacking.

This repositioning had diverse meanings for Turkey. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, we were being ourselves for the first time in a century. We were initiating a new growth, a new rising period.

We were preparing the state and institutions for this, receiving support from the community in this regard, renewing the country and nation’s goals, and carrying the continuity of the Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish states to a new stage.

This was a new rise in history for us. We had the claims of the centuries.

Turkey was realizing this “great revival” at a time the global power domain had collapsed, the power map had changed, in the area of maneuver presented by these developments. This was the right timing, a right decision, a right positioning.

This is why, right at this point, we faced the heavy attacks and embargoes of those we call “ally,” this is why they built “internal fronts” all together. The concern behind the accusation that “Turkey’s axis shifted” was, “Turkey is out of our hands, we must stop it.” This was the reason behind the coup attempts, economic attacks, and siege from the north of Syria and the Mediterranean.

Right during this period, the “Turkey axis” and “Turkey’s geopolitics” were becoming one of the hottest debate topics worldwide.

Its political mind, economic interests beyond the region, rediscovery of its historical political legacy, its negation of “multinational internal operations”, and its interventions targeting the siege plans that started with Syria’s Afrin, was going to show the world how Turkey became a star – they were aware of this.

They were aware of how Turkey would become a model. This is why security policies were activated and intense trivialization operations were launched globally through the media and political discourse.

A century ago, the story of a collapse was being written as the “Sick Man,” “The East problem.” A century later, the story of Turkey’s rise is being written.

Taking advantage of the West’s stagnation and with the support of the East’s rise, we had to establish a “Turkey front.” This was the voice of the 21st century; it was a political discourse that would spread throughout the entire region.

History was calling on us again and had loaded the same burden on our shoulders. Right at this period, it was becoming clear who is friend or foe – just as it did in all breaking points in history.

This voice was a great fight for civilization. It was a fight for honor and freedom. Its voice is so strong that it echoes from the depths of Africa to the streets of the Middle East, from Pakistan to the Malay world.

We believe that this is the voice of the 21st century, that it will turn upside down global plans, negate those multinational projects and start a legendary rise from this region.

Establishing relations with Asia, building partnerships with rising powers in Asia is not Eurasian-ism. It is not Third-Worldism. They are Cold War terms. The world experienced a great catastrophe. Realities have changed as much as terms and minds, and so has power. States that fail to see this are blind and can never build a future in the 21st century and beyond.

The “Turkey axis” is the sole and highest political identity we need to lay claim to. We need to produce intellectual content in this regard, hold discussions, awaken a social conscious and unite.

I will give a recent example. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for two days now, has been making statements with respect to an intervention on the east of the Euphrates in Syria as the U.S. delegation’s meetings in Ankara aimed at preventing and weakening this continue. The Euphrates Shield and Afrin intervention was a challenge against that multinational will – it was the Turkey axis’ response.

The intervention plan aimed at the east of the Euphrates is no different. Ankara breaking this siege as they are closing in on us is the “Turkey axis” stance. Because they want to build a structure similar to the “Poised Hammer,” or Operation Provide Comfort, in northern Syria, and stop Turkey via “partnership.” We are certainly opposing this. Because the “Poised Hammer” in Syria is suicide, and the next front is going to be in Turkey.

Why does nobody ask, “The people of Syria did not call the U.S. The regime did not call it. Neighboring countries such as Russia and Iran do not want it. So, based on what legitimacy is the U.S. able to be on the other side of the negotiation table in Ankara?” In relation to what mission other than as the spokesperson of a terrorist organization, against which we are at war, would we include the U.S. in our mission and why would we address it?

This is also the stance of the “Turkey axis.”