In the 1920s and 1930s, Turkey played a prominent role on the international stage. Its domestic transformations and the evolution of the Kemalist system of ideological and political principles were closely observed in Germany, France, Britain, the USA, and beyond, including several nations farther East. In recent years, scholarly interest in the transnational history of Kemalism has expanded. Some scholars have focused on the interwar period in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Albania, Yugoslavia, and Egypt to reveal how, as a practical tool, Kemalism was relocated as a global movement, whose influence is still felt today. Some scholars have examined the impact of Atatürk’s reforms and his image on the Jewish community in British-ruled Palestine before the establishment of Israel, some went farther East—to Persia, Afghanistan, China, India, and other parts of the Muslim world—to assess the influence wielded by Mustafa Kemal and his modernization project. These works explore perceptions of Kemalism that are mostly positive in their respective countries providing few critical insights into Kemalism’s evolution and its reception as an ideological project. Against this background, it is worth examining how Atatürk’s reform and radical modernization project, as well as the ideological transformation, was perceived by one of the critical partners of Turkey in the interwar period – the Soviet Union. How Kemalism was interpreted and understood in the Soviet Union has not been an object of scholarly analysis. Instead, most researchers have concentrated on the complexities of bilateral relations between Turkey and the Soviet Union, their patterns of modernization, and geopolitical rivalry during the Cold War. Both Kemalism and the Kemalists, initially – in the 1920s and mid-1930s - viewed as an ally in the struggle against the West, were later treated negatively by the Communist regime. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet position returned to normalization. Looking at these shifts through the lenses of Soviet leaders, diplomats, Communist party functionaries, and scholars helps us grasp the underlying dynamics behind these changing attitudes. Placing them in the larger context of republican history—delineating phases in the Kemalist paradigm of development and discerning its various rises and falls—will enrich our knowledge of the transnational history of Kemalism.