the problem with that analogy is that the Byzantines were not "Greeks" -- they believed themselve to be Romans, a continuation of Rome. They called themselves Romaoi and the Turks called their land Rum.
also in 1071, the Byzantines held themselves to be the holders of civilisation (there was no "western civilization" in their opinion as the westerners were barbarians, almost as bad as the Saracens)
Also, the analogy is wrong because it was just the Byzantines facing the Turks and the Bulgarians (who technically were Turkic) -- in the present day, China is opposed by a whole string of nations: Japan, India, Australia have navies powerful enough to contain China without American help
Unless the Huns were Turkic, I don't see how you get there. The Bulgarians were Huns, Goths, and some Slavs, both Southern Slavs and partly-Romanized Romano-Dacians, a.k.a. Getae, who were proto-Slavs and referred to in the Middle Ages as "Vlachs", hence "Wallachia". The Bulgars split into two populations, one of which settled in its modern prebends astride the Danube. The other moved east into the Volga valley, into territories occupied 200-300 years before by the Gothic kingdom until its destruction by the Huns in the late fourth century.