The Table of Six’s joint statement was quite important in terms of revealing the sort of Türkiye imagined by the National Alliance. Though the table elements explain this with the views they express on various platforms, it was the first time the partnership spirit was reflected in a statement. After the statement was revealed, it was clear that the table elements agreed on a West-inclined political understanding. The views expressed on various platforms corresponded to this spirit as well. The grandiose introduction of leading economists of the Anglo-Saxon world, such as Daron Acemoğlu, was critical, and certainly filled with political messages. While the table elements answered the sort of Türkiye they are pursuing, they were also sending very clear messages abroad.   The Statement of Joint Policies was a response to the type of Türkiye imagined in foreign policy as well. It was clear that Türkiye’s new political understanding, which, especially in recent years, from Libya to the Caucasus, and from there to Turkestan, presented a problem. In this context, the political response to new terms such as the “Blue Homeland” revealed incompatibilities. The declaration that they would stand with Ukraine against Russia was the reflection of West-inclined joint policies. But such views were previously expressed by opposition leaders such as Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, Ali Babacan, and Temel Karamollaoğlu. Hence, as can be understood from the statement name as well, there is clearly a consensus on joint policies. This eliminated certain gossip regarding the post-election period. But do the views on the statement mean a return to Türkiye’s traditional policies or a radical detachment from the Republic-era foreign policy understanding? These questions were asked in the past with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the center. The Statement of Joint Policies and the relevant leaders’ statements need to be reanalyzed with these questions.     It is quite clear that the claim of radical detachment from the Republic-era foreign policy understanding does not comply with any of the categories with which we are familiar. Such detachment or opposition would usually be brought up when questioning right-wing parties’ political understanding. In fact, the National Vision’s (MG) view had faced a similar accusation on many accounts in this frame. A similar situation applied during the times Erdoğan first came to power. His Istanbul mayorship was overshadowed by such accusations. He was thus sent to prison. The established political categories remained valid until the 2010s. It couldn’t be understood that the opposition of those who alleged during this period that accounts were being settled with the Republic, and those who faced these allegations weren’t based on realistic grounds. These ideological categories were not tested with actual development. The “one minute” outburst in 2009 was a realistic actual situation. It is quite significant that the discussions in the context of opposition to the Republic lost impact from this period onwards. Erdoğan’s outbursts after 2009, and his new policy, which started to present physical results on the ground in the 2012s, was very far from establishing opposition to the Republican period. The “one minute,” and the “world is bigger than five” outbursts, which are the premises of the New Türkiye understanding, could not be considered the reflections of an internal feud. This new understanding forced opposing groups to change too. As a result, positions implied by oppositions such as secular-anti-secular, progressivist-reactionist, and reaction lost all significance. The actual state could not be overlooked.     Following the Table of Six’s Statement of Joint Policies, President Erdoğan announced the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party election manifesto as well. Undoubtedly, we need to examine this manifesto in the context of the answers to the question of what kind of Türkiye we want. However, we should note that the announced manifesto is not oriented towards the West in general. The list of actions to be taken, which is categorized under subheadings such as defense industry, foreign policy, transportation, communication, agriculture, and animal husbandry, can be seen as manifestations of a new axis understanding beyond the perspective of dependence. Undoubtedly, these are the concrete steps towards Türkiye's Century goal. Thus, the question of "how" is also intended to be answered.   Reading the two texts side by side will also reveal the contrasts.