Then we need to ask what NATO's strategy is. Surely they are not as foolish as to think that they would succeed where Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler failed. It is possible that as in the Crimean War, when France, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, and Sardinia (the core of modern Italy) united to stop Russian expansion, the NATO powers believe that a limited war can be successfully waged against Russia. On paper, it would appear to be a mismatch. All of Europe, except for Austria, Switzerland, Ireland, and Serbia, and the two North American nations are faced against Russia, which only has Belarus as an ally.
Even if both sides refrain from using nuclear weapons, I must wonder if the imbalance is as much of a slam dunk as it appears on paper. It is possible that Russia is pulling its punches in Ukraine and would go all out against a NATO attack. The United States is above all the world's greatest naval power. But as the Ukrainians and the Houthis have shown, warships are more vulnerable than at any time since Roman Empire days. It is also possible that China and North Korea would use American preoccupation in Eastern Europe to make mischief in the Far East. Turkey may switch sides in order to expand its Near East position in conjunction with Iran to dominate the area and eliminate Israel.
I never said anything about it but your take on Turkey is correct.
They were always kind of a misfit in NATO except during the USSR they could be seen as yet another religious nation resisting godless communism.
They do want a pan-Turkish union with their relatives in central Asia.
My guess is it would be similar to the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, functionally a type of multinational empire.