Casual Observer
Legenda
- Poruka
- 68.453
Uprkos činjenici da je Sanstefanski mir predviđao izuzetno uvećanu bugarsku nacionalnu državu, uz ostalo i pripajanjem čisto srpskih etničkih oblasti, i time postao nepresušan izvor bugarskih teritorijalnih aspiracija prema susedima, Srbiji, Grčkoj i sada Makedoniji, u Bugarskoj se pojavljuju i novija tumačenja da je u pitanju bila samo “ruska prevara” kojom je trebalo trajno okrenuti Bugare od Zapada i orijentisati ih prema Rusiji, navodno “bez ikakve ruske namere” da se sporazum sprovede u delo.
Naime, od devedesetih godina dvadesetog se u Bugarskoj tvrdi i da je Rusija u San Stefanu prosto pokušala da “prevari Bugare” i da je imala “neiskrenih namera”, tj da je Bugarima javno nuđeno ono što se nije nameravalo ispuniti. Sve “zarad postizanja političkih poena kod bugarske javnosti”. Revizionistička teorija prosto tvrdi da je planirano da Bugarska bude samo ruska marioneta, ili direktno i formalno pod ruskom upravom, ili posredno, pomoću nekakve “indirektne srpske kontrole nad Bugarskom”.
Izvor - Vikipedija na engleskom:
They argue that the "Bulgarian Question" and the liberation of the Bulgarians were used only as a political ruse and a stepping stone to Constantinople.[18][19][11] As indicated in Ignatyev's Diaries, if the Russian plan had succeeded, Bulgarians would have ultimately been placed under Russian control by either subjecting them to direct Russian or indirect Serbian rule or ruling them as a puppet state.
Among other things, Ignatyev is found to have continuously subverted the struggle for an independent Bulgarian Church in the 1860s and the 1870s, the success of which played a crucial role in Bulgarian nation-building. He is further implicated to have advocated for the hanging of the founder of the Bulgarian Internal Revolutionary Organisation (IRO), Vasil Levski, before the Ottoman authorities attempted to make the IRO, which was hostile to any foreign involvement, more amenable to Russian desires.[20][16][11][14][21]
Indzhev, in particular, notes that by eliminating IRO's ideologue and leader, hellbent on liberation "by own means" and maligning the 19th-century Bulgarian bourgeoisie (e.g., Stoyan Chomakov), which favoured gaining autonomy by working together with the Ottoman authorities, Ignatyev's work blocked both Bulgaria's "revolutionary" and "evolutionary" path of development, which made "liberation by Russia", the scenario giving Russia direct control over Bulgarian affairs, the only option left.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano
—————-
* Moj ‘lokalni edit’ radi pojašnjenja.
Naime, od devedesetih godina dvadesetog se u Bugarskoj tvrdi i da je Rusija u San Stefanu prosto pokušala da “prevari Bugare” i da je imala “neiskrenih namera”, tj da je Bugarima javno nuđeno ono što se nije nameravalo ispuniti. Sve “zarad postizanja političkih poena kod bugarske javnosti”. Revizionistička teorija prosto tvrdi da je planirano da Bugarska bude samo ruska marioneta, ili direktno i formalno pod ruskom upravom, ili posredno, pomoću nekakve “indirektne srpske kontrole nad Bugarskom”.
Izvor - Vikipedija na engleskom:
Critical re-evaluation of (San Stefano*) treaty in Bulgaria since the 1990s
Since 1990, a number of historians, publicists and journalists in Bulgaria have subjected the Treaty of San Stefano and the entire policy of the Russian Empire on the Eastern question in the 19th century to critical re-evaluation and have concluded that the treaty was a "charade" crafted by the long-standing Russian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Count Nikolay Ignatyev, for the purpose of securing Russian interests in Bulgaria and fomenting lasting anti-Western sentiment in Bulgarian society.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]Russian Empire's objectives
Drawing on the texts of the 1876 Reichstadt Agreement, the 1877 Budapest Convention, various correspondence during the time period and particularly Count Ignatyev's own unfiltered thoughts in his diaries, all researchers draw the conclusion that the Russian Empire's only ambition was to conquer the Turkish Straits, in continuation of Catherine the Great's Greek Plan.[18][19][11]They argue that the "Bulgarian Question" and the liberation of the Bulgarians were used only as a political ruse and a stepping stone to Constantinople.[18][19][11] As indicated in Ignatyev's Diaries, if the Russian plan had succeeded, Bulgarians would have ultimately been placed under Russian control by either subjecting them to direct Russian or indirect Serbian rule or ruling them as a puppet state.
Count Ignatyev's role in securing Russian imperial policy
Whereas in traditional Bulgarian and international historiography, Ignatyev is generally presented as a great friend of Bulgaria and an advocate of Bulgarian liberation, his diaires present him rather as a Machiavellian politician completely dedicated to furthering Russian imperialist expansion on the Balkans.Among other things, Ignatyev is found to have continuously subverted the struggle for an independent Bulgarian Church in the 1860s and the 1870s, the success of which played a crucial role in Bulgarian nation-building. He is further implicated to have advocated for the hanging of the founder of the Bulgarian Internal Revolutionary Organisation (IRO), Vasil Levski, before the Ottoman authorities attempted to make the IRO, which was hostile to any foreign involvement, more amenable to Russian desires.[20][16][11][14][21]
Indzhev, in particular, notes that by eliminating IRO's ideologue and leader, hellbent on liberation "by own means" and maligning the 19th-century Bulgarian bourgeoisie (e.g., Stoyan Chomakov), which favoured gaining autonomy by working together with the Ottoman authorities, Ignatyev's work blocked both Bulgaria's "revolutionary" and "evolutionary" path of development, which made "liberation by Russia", the scenario giving Russia direct control over Bulgarian affairs, the only option left.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano
—————-
* Moj ‘lokalni edit’ radi pojašnjenja.
