From Wikipedia, 1739 in Sweden
Sweden form an alliance with the Ottoman Empire against the Empire of Russia. This is the first alliance between the Ottoman Empire and a Christian nation.
(This last sentence is wrong, Wikipedia wrong again... see a comment below: [Franco-Ottoman alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance; but the Wikipedia mistake does not change the question in its core.)
(I thought it is needless to say that the treaty is not alive anymore, but you never know)
If you try to find historical hints, this old treaty could (wrongly or rightly, that is the question here) be seen as a symbol of a sort of bilateral NATO history of Turkey and Sweden against Russia. The nowadays understanding in the media can be read as if the NATO is only to defend against Russia, and that the NATO partnership of Sweden and Turkey can be mildly seen as a follow-up from old times.
Is this not a politico-juridical misunderstanding? The long-term aim of the NATO was the integration of Russia to reach a safe NATO area, and with the actions of the US, its aim has shifted against Russia, but the contract has not changed. The US let Turkey into the NATO in 1952 for a better stand against Russia, the cold war stressed Russia as the enemy, but the aim of the NATO was different. Without the doubtful US influence with its fight for democratic values and against communism, Russia likely would not be dangerous enough for Sweden today to make Sweden try to join the NATO in 2022.
If a treaty was not meant to be as the one it has been taken for, could the NATO of today still be seen as a sort of follow-up of the 1739 Swedish-Ottoman alliance? From a political juridical viewpoint for Sweden. Wrong or right? And why?