There are some criticisms, which should be considered, about the book. The most important shortcoming is about the imperial legacy that Türkiye has inherited. Mankoff took the date of 1453 as a starting point for this legacy. However, the aspects of this heritage based on both the Central Asian Turkish Empires and the Seljuk Empire have been neglected. This neglect lead to the overlook of an important dynamic that is effective in Türkiye’s relations with Central Asia and the Caucasus. Another criticism is related to the section in which Türkiye is analyzed. In this section, it is noteworthy that the author makes a one-sided reading with respect to any discussions about the Armenian Question. Had Türkiye’s theses on the Armenian Question been included, the academic flexibility of the author would have been strengthened. A final criticism comes to the fore regarding the author’s approach. The fact that he puts neo-liberal values in the center and evaluates the four states here as abnormal actors deviating from these values naturally leaves out questions that different theoretical approaches can answer. For this reason, the discussions initiated by the author in this book should be evaluated with other theoretical approaches.