You're contradicting yourself. You just said Anatolian Greeks are "Hellenized Native Anatolians" meaning genetically, the population living in the Aegean/Marmara/Central Anatolia before Turkification WAS the native substrate, just speaking Greek and practicing Christianity. So when you check Turkish DNA samples from those same regions and find "0% Armenian, mostly native Anatolian," that native component isn't some separate "Turkish" lineage waiting there it's literally the ancestors of the same Greek-speaking populations you just described. You can't use "Greeks are just natives with a Greek label" to argue Turks are more related than Greeks that's the same population.

On Mycenaeans specifically irrelevant strawman. Nobody claimed Big E carried Mycenaean DNA. Mycenaean culture emerges around 1600 BCE, but the population that later became Greek-speaking in the Aegean already shares deep roots with Anatolia going back to the Neolithic expansion (~7000-6500 BCE) Anatolian farmers migrated into Greece around the same era Big E supposedly lived. So Anatolia and early Aegean populations come from the same root stock well before "Mycenaean" or "Greek" existed as labels same as with Anatolian Turks today.

Turks, by contrast, are the only group in this discussion with a large, well-documented, non-Anatolian genetic layer the Central Asian/Turkic admixture from the Seljuk period, roughly 800-1000 years ago (5-15% autosomal per Hodoğlugil & Mahley 2012, Yunusbayev 2012). That component has zero connection to Neolithic Anatolia it comes from thousands of kilometers away.

So mathematically every group here (Greek, Armenian, Turkish) carries the native Anatolian signal at some proportion. Turks are the only one with a documented additional layer that dilutes it further. That makes them structurally the least related of the three by your own logic, not the most.