Liberation of Bulgaria from Turkish rule by Russian troops. Bulgaria remembers the Russians who shook off the Ottoman yoke

Continuous wars with Byzantium and Serbia weakened the political and military power of the second Bulgarian kingdom, the unity of which in reality became fictitious. At the end of its existence, independent owners controlled its individual areas: in North-Eastern Bulgaria, in Voshchina, in the Rhodope Mountains. This fragmentation of the state helped the Turks, who penetrated the Balkans at the beginning of the 14th century, take possession of all territories of the country. After the siege of the city of Tarnovo (the capital of Bulgaria) fell in 1393, Tsar Ivan Shishman was captured in Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv) and executed there in 1395. In 1394 the Turks occupied the northeastern part of Bulgaria, and in 1396 - the Vidin kingdom. Thus ended the 210-year history of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom. Many Bulgarians fled to the Russian principalities, Romania and Serbia. Some of them, such as Constantine the Philosopher (Konstantin Kostenechsky) and Gregory Tsamblak in Serbia, became famous educators. From that moment on, for almost five centuries, Bulgaria became a province of the Ottoman Empire.

The Turkish yoke (1396 - 1878) is the darkest period in Bulgarian history. Political enslavement was combined with religious pressure: the Bulgarian Patriarchate was destroyed, the remaining churches were forced to submit to Greek supremacy, monasteries and cultural monuments were destroyed. Greek priests occupied all the highest church posts and began to implement a program for the Hellenization of the Bulgarians. The Bulgarian clergy was deprived of parishes, services began to be conducted according to the canons of the Greek Church; monasteries and schools became centers of Greek education; libraries containing Bulgarian books were looted, including the library of the Tarnovo Patriarchate and the Cathedral; It was forbidden to use the Cyrillic and Bulgarian languages. Instead, the Greek language was officially introduced. Only the monks of the Athos (Aton) Monastery conducted services in Bulgarian.

Driven out of strategic centers and fertile plains, the Bulgarians retreated to the mountains. A considerable part of them were forced to convert to Islam. And those who defended their Christian religion were subjected to cruel exploitation in the form of heavy taxes and various duties. “Raya” (as the Turks called enslaved Christians) were also forced to pay the so-called “blood tax”, i.e. sending little boys to Turkish barracks for training. After the adoption of Islam, they turned into Janissaries, who became the selected part of the Turkish army.

The Bulgarian population repeatedly tried to free itself from Ottoman oppression. Uprisings broke out in 1402 - 1403, in 1598 and 1686 in Tarnovo, in 1688 in Chiprovtsy, etc. Since the beginning of the 17th century, the so-called Haydush movement (in the form of peculiar partisan detachments) became popular.

In the 18th century, a period of national revival began. Since 1735, schools outside monasteries became widespread, where education was conducted in the Bulgarian language. Paisiy Hilendarsky, a monk of the Aton Monastery, wrote “Slavic-Bulgarian History” (1762). In many cities and large villages, “reading houses” appeared - houses in which one could read books, hold evenings of national traditions, and stage plays. Reading centers have become centers for the development of national identity and the dissemination of newly created cultural folk values. During the Russian-Turkish War of 1828, the Bulgarian national liberation movement was born. Despite the fact that popular uprisings were mercilessly suppressed, partisan detachments (haiduks) operated throughout the country and took revenge on the Turks. The movement was led by church leaders and educated people with the support of wealthy peasants (chorbajis), traders and artisans (esnafi). Bulgarian emigrants living in Russia and Western countries provided significant assistance from abroad. Turkish authorities were forced to allow the opening of Bulgarian schools (1835); the number of primary schools by 1845 reached 21 (2 in cities and 19 in villages). Finally, the Bulgarian Church achieved independence from the Greek Patriarchate in Constantinople. The Sultan's ferman (decree) of 1870 legally decreed this independence and effectively recognized the identity of the Bulgarian nation.

Exactly 140 years ago - on March 3, 1878 - a peace treaty was signed in San Stefano between the Russian and Ottoman empires, putting an end to the Russian-Turkish war. The result was the appearance of new independent states on the world map - Bulgaria and Montenegro, and international navigation on the Danube was also opened. This date is extremely significant for a number of Balkan states: Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, but the most important anniversary of the signing of the document remains for Bulgarian society. In this state, March 3 is officially considered Independence Day and is a non-working day.

The Ottoman Empire controlled Bulgarian, Serbian, and a number of Montenegrin and Romanian territories since 1382. At the same time, severe restrictions on rights and freedoms were introduced for the Christian part of the population of these lands. Christians were subject to strict taxes, could not fully manage their property, and did not have the right to personal freedom.

In particular, the Turkish authorities could without hesitation take Christian children in infancy to work in the Ottoman Empire, while parents were then prohibited from seeing their sons and daughters. Moreover, at one time the Turks had the right of first night for Christian women who wanted to marry other Christians.

To top it all off, most cities in Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina banned Christians from living on certain lands.

This policy led to a series of protests against Turkish rule in the 19th century. At the end of that century, uprisings of Christian Serbs broke out simultaneously in Bosnia, as well as the April Uprising in Bulgaria in 1875-1876. All these protests were harshly suppressed by Turkey, and the Turks distinguished themselves with particular ruthlessness during the suppression of the April Uprising, when, according to documents, of the 30 thousand of the total number killed during the dispersal of the rebels, only 10 thousand were in one way or another involved in hostilities against the Ottoman Empire, the rest were either relatives or acquaintances of the rebels. In addition to murders, Turkish military and irregular forces were noted for mass looting of Bulgarian homes and rape of Bulgarian women. The painting of the Russian Itinerant artist “Bulgarian Martyrs,” painted in 1877, was dedicated to these events.

Events in the Balkans at that time caused outrage in society around the world. This was facilitated by the articles of the American war correspondent Januarius McGahan, who wrote for a series of reports about the crimes of the Turks against Bulgarians of both sexes.

A number of prominent politicians and creative figures of the late 19th century condemned the policies of Istanbul. Among them were the writers Oscar Wilde, the scientist, politician and revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi.

However, the actions of the authorities of the Ottoman Empire were most indignant in Russian society, in which the issues of oppression of the Slavs on the Balkan Peninsula were traditionally perceived painfully.

The uprising in Bosnia and Bulgaria received widespread press coverage. Fundraising began in Russian Orthodox churches and newspaper editorial offices to help the rebels; public organizations helped accept Bulgarian refugees; in addition, dozens of volunteers went to the Balkans to take part in hostilities against the Ottomans. For some time they tried to abandon a direct war with Turkey, since military reform had not yet been completed in Russia, and the economic situation was not very favorable.

In December 1876, Russia, England, France and Turkey held a conference in Istanbul, where the Russian side demanded that the Turks recognize the autonomy of Bulgaria and Bosnia under the protectorate of the world community. The Ottoman Empire pointedly refused this. And in April of the following year, under pressure from public opinion and a number of politicians, Russia declared war on Turkey.

From the very beginning it was extremely difficult for Russia. With great difficulty, Russian troops crossed the Danube. In addition, Turkish supporters managed to raise an uprising in Abkhazia, Chechnya and Dagestan. As a result, almost the entire Black Sea coast on Abkhaz territory was taken by the Turks by the spring of 1877. To suppress these protests, the Russian authorities were forced to transfer reinforcements from the Far East.

In the Balkans, combat operations were also difficult for the Russian army: the lack of modern weapons and problems with supplying the army with food and medicine affected it. As a result, Russian troops managed to win the key battle of the war and take the city of Plevna only a few months after it began. Nevertheless, Russian troops, with the support of volunteers from among the Bulgarians, Romanians and Serbs, managed to liberate the entire territory of Bulgaria, part of Bosnia and Romania from Turkish rule. The general's units occupied Adrianople (modern Edirne) and came close to Istanbul. The commander-in-chief of the Turkish army, Osman Pasha, was captured by the Russians.

The war found a wide response in Russian society. Many people went to participate in hostilities voluntarily. Among them were famous people, including doctors, Sergei Botkin, writers and.

The commander of the 13th Narva Hussar Regiment of the Russian Army, the son of the great Russian poet and prose writer, also took part in the hostilities.

Stolen Victory

After a series of military failures, Türkiye was forced to hastily make peace with Russia. It was signed in the western suburb of Istanbul San Stefano (now called Yeşilköy). On the Russian side, the agreement was signed by the former Russian ambassador to Turkey, Count and head of the diplomatic office of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army in the Balkans, Alexander Nelidov. From Turkish - Foreign Minister Savfet Pasha and Ambassador to Germany Saadullah Pasha. The document proclaimed the creation of the independent state of Bulgaria, the principality of Montenegro, and a significant increase in the territories of Serbia and Romania. At the same time, Bulgaria received a number of Turkish territories where the Bulgarians lived before the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans: Bulgarian territory extended from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid (modern Macedonia). In addition, Russia received a number of cities in Transcaucasia, and the autonomy of Bosnia and Albania was formed.

However, a number of European powers did not agree with the provisions of the document, primarily Great Britain. The English squadron approached Istanbul, and a serious threat of war between the United Kingdom and Russia arose. As a result, a new treaty was concluded in Berlin, called the Berlin Treaty. According to it, Bulgaria was divided into two parts, one proclaimed an independent state with its capital in Sofia, and the second proclaimed autonomy, but within the Ottoman Empire. Also, Serbia and Romania had to abandon some of the acquisitions of the San Stefano Treaty, and Russia was forced to return some of the Transcaucasian acquisitions. However, she retained the historically Armenian city of Kars, which was actively populated by Russian settlers.

Also, under the Berlin Agreement, Austria-Hungary received the right to establish a protectorate over Bosnia and Herzegovina, which eventually became one of the reasons for the First World War.

“The liberation war of 1877-78 is considered by a number of historians to be the fairest, since after the brutal suppression of the April Uprising it was the all-Slavic upsurge that became its driving force. This liberation war was essentially started by the people, and they won it. And the Treaty of San Stefano fixed the independence of Bulgaria within its historical borders. However, Russia’s military victory then turned into a diplomatic defeat for both the Russian Empire and Bulgaria,” he says in an interview with Gazeta. Ru” Ambassador of Bulgaria to Russia Boyko Kotsev.

According to him, this was due, among other things, to the fact that the Peace of San Stefano was developed by some people, first of all, Count Ignatiev, and another delegation was sent to Berlin for negotiations - led by Count Mikhail Gorchakov. “Being of an advanced age and lacking information from his ambassadors, some of whom were engaged not so much in state affairs as in personal affairs, he was unable to protect the interests of Russia, as a result of which it lost a number of achievements of the war. This also affected Bulgaria, which lost some of its historical lands as a result of the Berlin dictatorship, as we called it, forever. However, we remember those who made their invaluable contribution to the formation of the Bulgarian state, and since then Count Ignatiev, who developed the draft of the San Stefano Agreement, is considered a national hero of Bulgaria,” Kotsev concluded.

Some historians believe that the reason St. Petersburg signed the Berlin Agreement was Russia's unwillingness to fight with England. As a result of the battles of the war of 1877-1878, 15.5 thousand Russian soldiers and officers, about 3.5 thousand Bulgarian volunteers were killed, in addition, 2.5 thousand militiamen from Serbia and Montenegro were killed.

Bulgarians think differently

Despite the fact that the date of the Treaty of San Stefano is one of the main national holidays in Bulgaria, now people have appeared in the intellectual and political elite of the country who have begun to advocate the removal of references to this event from Bulgarian history textbooks. “In Bulgaria there is a certain layer of people who advocate the broadest cooperation with a number of European countries and the United States, but they prefer to forget about the role of Russia.

I remember well my conversation with one activist. In front of me, she was indignant that in Bulgaria they even dared to erect monuments to Russian soldiers; they, they say, were occupiers and killed Bulgarians, and did not protect them. And when the Russian Patriarch came to Bulgaria, she was literally shaking with anger, shouting: “Kakva is impudent! Kakva impudence!!!" (What impudence - Bulgarian). It turns out that the Patriarch had the “arrogance” to call Russians and Bulgarians a single people.

“They, these Russians, want to occupy Bulgaria again through the church!” she almost shouted. I dared to object that he meant the Slavic brotherhood, and she responded that it doesn’t matter,” traveler and Balkanist Danko Malinovsky, who has Russian and Macedonian roots, told Gazeta.Ru.

Some Bulgarian public figures admit that there are people in the country who do not recognize the significance of the Treaty of San Stefano in Bulgarian history, but emphasize that they are in the minority.

“There are people in Bulgaria, this is about 4% of our society, who are trying to give this event a political and economic flavor, trying to show that then Russia pursued the goal of reaching the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and was not interested in the liberation of the Bulgarians,” says “ Gazeta.Ru” Chairman of the Bulgarian National Movement “Russophiles” Nikolai Malinov. He emphasized that the vast majority of Bulgarians have a completely different position on this matter. “Let’s not forget that Russia, after the liberation of Bulgaria, actually created the Bulgarian fleet and army, created the constitution of our country and laid the foundations of our statehood. Two years after the end of the war of 1877-1878, the Russians left all this to us and simply left without demanding anything in return. And, of course, we have not forgotten this. Today, up to 100 thousand people will come to the Shipka Pass, where one of the key battles of that war took place, to honor the memory of the fallen Russian soldiers and officers, as well as Bulgarian militiamen. It is expected that the memorial on Shipka will also be visited,” Malinov added.

By the beginning of the 70s, a significant part of the Balkan Peninsula was still under Turkish rule. In their hands were Bulgaria, Macedonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, Epirus, Thessaly. Only Greece was officially an independent state. Serbia and Romania recognized the suzerainty of the Turkish Sultan and paid him tribute. Montenegro actually gained independence, but did not have the legal status of an independent state. Liberation from the Turkish yoke and the formation of independent national states was the most urgent and priority task of the Balkan peoples. At the same time, the question of eliminating Turkish domination in the Balkans and, consequently, the fate of all or most of the European possessions of the Ottoman Empire was one of the most pressing problems of international politics.

1. Eastern crisis of the 70s

A brewing political crisis in the Balkans

The disintegration of the Turkish feudal system and the gradual transformation of the Ottoman Empire into a semi-colony of capitalist powers - processes accelerated by the Crimean War - had profound consequences for the enslaved peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. The penetration of capitalist relations was combined with the preservation, and in some cases, the strengthening of the crudest forms of feudal exploitation, intertwined with cruel national and religious oppression. At the same time, the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire encountered obstacles on the path of their economic development from European capital, which had various privileges and destroyed local crafts and manufactures with the competition of its factory goods.

The attempts made by the ruling circles of Turkey during the Tanzimat period to adapt the dilapidated feudal system to the requirements of capitalist development could neither suspend nor even significantly weaken the irreconcilable contradiction between the vital interests of the Balkan peoples and the reactionary Turkish rule. Fear of the liberation movement of non-Turkish peoples also doomed the liberal elements of Turkish society, who tried to prevent the collapse of the empire through partial reforms, to powerlessness. The only major revolutionary factor in the Balkans was the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples, the goal of which - the creation of independent national states - met the objective needs of the economic development of the Turkish people themselves.

In the 70s, a new stage began in the development of the national movement of the enslaved peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. Its anti-feudal character becomes more pronounced, and the divergence between the masses and the Turkophile trading-thief-robber strata becomes deeper. The emergence of a revolutionary democratic movement among the Bulgarians marked the beginning of their organized struggle for their liberation. From the scattered actions of partisan detachments, the national liberation movement in Bulgaria is coming close to preparing a broad popular uprising.

Created in 1870 in Bucharest by Bulgarian emigrants, the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee considered its main task to organize a popular armed uprising in Bulgaria. One of the leaders of the Central Committee, an outstanding revolutionary, Basil Levsky, sought to involve the broad peasant masses in the struggle, and with enormous energy created an extensive revolutionary organization. After Levski was captured by the Turkish authorities and executed (1873), divisions intensified within the Central Committee. Its chairman, Lyuben Karavelov, who had previously taken an active part in the liberation struggle, took up exclusively educational activities. The committee was actually headed by Hristo Botev, a revolutionary democrat and utopian socialist, whose political views were formed under the influence of the writings of Russian revolutionary democrats and especially N.G. Chernyshevsky. Botev’s articles in the newspapers “Svoboda”, “Nezavisimoe”, “Duma na bolgarskite emigranta” (“Word of the Bulgarian emigrants”) and especially in the newspaper “Zname”, which he published, inspired the Bulgarian people to fight for freedom and called for a nationwide uprising.

Uprisings of 1875-1876 in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria

Bosnia and Herzegovina was the scene of constant struggle against the Turkish oppressors. Back in 1853-1858 and 1860-1862. Major uprisings took place here, during which rebel organizers Luka Vukalovich, Peko Pavlovic and others emerged. The harvest failure of 1874, which led to a sharp deterioration in the situation of the masses, served as the impetus for a new upsurge of the liberation struggle.

While the population of cities and villages was starving, the Sultan's government, which had not fulfilled any of its promises made during the Tanzimat period, continued to pursue a policy of national oppression and tax robbery. In 1875, the agiar - feudal tithe - was significantly increased, which further increased the discontent of the peasantry. When Turkish tax collectors in the summer of the same year tried again over several days to collect taxes in one of the districts of Herzegovina, a spontaneous uprising broke out here, quickly sweeping the entire region, and then Bosnia. The rebels wrote in their appeal that they decided to “fight for freedom or die to the last man.” Armed peasants and artisans defeated several Turkish detachments, and part of the Sultan's troops were driven into fortresses and surrounded. New promises of reform made by the Turkish government have not led to reassurance; The participants in the uprising refused to lay down their arms. In September 1875, the population of Stara Zagora in Bulgaria rebelled. The rebels were quickly defeated, but in April 1876 a new, even wider uprising began. The Sultan sent up to 10 thousand well-armed bashi-bazouks (irregular troops). They broke into cities and villages, tortured and killed thousands of people. The areas of the uprising turned into huge ashes. Hristo Botev, who arrived in Bulgaria at the head of an armed detachment he formed on Romanian territory, died in battles with Turkish troops.

The April uprising, the main force of which were peasants and artisans, was an attempt to achieve national liberation and resolve the historical task facing Bulgaria - to end feudalism. This attempt then failed due to the numerical superiority of the Turkish troops and the betrayal of Turkophile elements from among the rural rich - the Chorbajis.

At the end of June 1876, the governments of Serbia and Montenegro demanded that Turkey refuse to send punitive troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Türkiye did not satisfy their demands, and on June 30, both Slavic states declared war on it.

In several battles, the Montenegrins defeated the Turkish troops sent against them, but the main forces of the Sultan's army, sent against Serbia, achieved success and by the beginning of September they opened their way to Belgrade. Only an ultimatum from the Russian government, supported by a partial mobilization of troops, forced Turkey to suspend military operations.

Great Power Intervention

The outcome of the struggle of the Balkan peoples depended not only on their own efforts, but also on the international situation, on the clash of interests of major European powers in the so-called Eastern question. These states included primarily England, Austria-Hungary and Russia. British diplomacy continued to verbally defend the “integrity” of the Ottoman Empire. But this traditional means of countering Russia’s foreign policy plans also served as a cover for Britain’s own plans for territorial expansion in the Middle East.

For Austria-Hungary, the Eastern question was primarily a Slavic question. The patchwork empire, which forcibly retained millions of Slavs, already for this reason resolutely opposed the liberation movement in the neighboring Balkan regions and the formation of large, independent Slavic states there. After the military defeat of 1866, when Austria's plans for its hegemony in Germany collapsed, Austrian diplomacy intensified its activity in the Balkans. In the ruling camp of the “dual monarchy,” especially among the Hungarian magnates, there were also supporters of cautious actions in the Balkans, who considered it dangerous to increase the Slavic population of Austria-Hungary. But ultimately, the course of expansion and the seizure of Bosnia and Herzegovina prevailed. Austria-Hungary could not implement these plans on its own. Therefore, in her interests there was a new aggravation of the eastern question and a resolution that would combine the partial division of Turkey’s European possessions with the preservation of a sufficiently strong Turkish “dam” against Russian influence on the Balkan Peninsula.

The German government, while preparing an alliance with Austria-Hungary at that time, supported its expansionist aspirations in the Balkans. At the same time, it also pushed Russia to act against Turkey, since it hoped that if Russia focused its attention on the Balkans, as well as in Transcaucasia, and if, as Bismarck put it, “the Russian locomotive would let off steam somewhere away from the German border.” , then Germany will have a free hand in relation to France.

For its part, tsarism, although weakened by the defeat in the Crimean War, did not abandon its policy of conquest in the Balkans and the Middle East. In the post-reform period, the economic motives of this policy became even more important, connected with the colonization of the southern outskirts of Russia, the growth of grain exports through the Black Sea ports, and the penetration of Russian goods into the Middle Eastern countries.

At the same time, the tsarist government sought to take advantage of the sincere sympathy of wide circles of Russian society for the liberation struggle of the Slavic peoples, hoping that a victorious war with Turkey would undermine the growing revolutionary movement in the country and strengthen the autocracy.

An attempt by European powers using diplomatic pressure in 1875-1876. and then at the Constantinople Conference at the end of 1876, forcing the Turkish government to carry out reforms in the Balkan provinces did not bring success. Sultan Abdul Hamid II, confident in the irreconcilability of the contradictions between the powers and encouraged by the support of England, refused to accept the project developed by the conference.

Russo-Turkish War

After the outbreak of the Serbian-Turkish war, the tsarist government accelerated preparations for armed intervention in Balkan affairs.

In the summer of 1876, a meeting between the Russian and Austrian emperors took place in Reichstadt, during which an agreement was reached on the neutrality of Austria-Hungary in the event of a Russian-Turkish war. In March 1877, shortly after the closure of the fruitless Constantinople Conference, the two powers signed a secret convention in Budapest, according to which, in exchange for the neutrality of Austria-Hungary, Russia agreed to its occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A month later, in April 1877, Russia entered into an agreement with Romania, according to which the Romanian government undertook to send troops against Turkey, as well as to allow the Russian army through its territory.

The tsarist government hoped to end the war in one campaign. The strategic goal of the Russian army was to capture all of Bulgaria, the bordering regions of Macedonia and Thrace, and, if possible, the capital of Turkey - Constantinople (Istanbul). The Turkish command initially had an offensive plan designed to capture Romania and deliver a decisive blow to Russian troops in Bessarabia.

But on the eve of the war, this plan, as too risky, was replaced by a new one: it was planned to gradually weaken the Russian army in battle, doom it to immobility, using large fortresses on the Danube for this, and then defeat it.

On April 24, 1877, the Russian government declared war on Turkey. Russia sent an army of 185,000 to the Balkans; These forces were opposed by 160 thousand Turkish soldiers, not counting the almost 60 thousand reserves located in southern Bulgaria and Macedonia. On June 27, 1877, the advanced units of the Russians successfully crossed the largest obstacle - the Danube - and with battle captured the main point of enemy defense - the city of Sistov.

The population of Bulgaria enthusiastically greeted their liberator - the Russian army. At the beginning of the war, seven thousand Bulgarian warriors set out from Ploiesti to the front. Bulgarian militias and volunteers of Bulgarian couples fought side by side with Russian soldiers. They showed high morale and heroism in difficult battles. However, the tsarist government was afraid of the wide scope of the people's liberation struggle and tried to control and limit the direct participation of the Bulgarians in the liberation of their homeland.

Along with the Russian units, the troops of Romania, which declared complete independence on May 21, 1877, also took part in the battles. From the west, Montenegro and Serbia led the attack on the Turkish army.

In the Caucasian theater of operations, Russian troops achieved rapid and significant success, taking Kare and threatening Erzurum. But in the Balkans, the advance of the Russian army was delayed for more than four months due to stubborn battles near the large Turkish fortress of Plevna (Pleven). Only after three assaults and a long siege was the fortress taken in early December.

The war revealed the low military-technical level of the tsarist army and the mediocrity of a significant part of the senior command staff. However, the steadfastness and heroism of Russian soldiers when crossing the Balkan passes in harsh winter conditions, in the battles of Shipka and in other battles of this war ultimately brought victory.

In January 1878, the Russian army launched a decisive offensive, penetrated the Maritsa Valley and captured Adrianople (Edirne). Here on January 31 a truce was signed. Then, in accordance with the terms of the truce, continuing to advance towards Constantinople, Russian troops occupied the town of San Stefano, 12 km from the Turkish capital. On March 3, 1878, a peace treaty was signed in San Stefano.

Treaty of San Stefano and Congress of Berlin

According to the Peace of San Stefano, a large independent Bulgarian state was created - “Great Bulgaria”, stretching “from sea to sea” (from the Black Sea to the Aegean) and including both the northern part of the country and the southern regions (Eastern Rumelia and Macedonia ). Turkey recognized the full independence of Romania, Montenegro and Serbia, and also pledged to provide self-government to Bosnia and Herzegovina and carry out broad reforms in other Slavic regions remaining under its rule. To compensate for military costs, Türkiye agreed to pay Russia 1,410 million rubles. indemnity and, in the form of partial coverage of this amount, cede Batum, Kara, Ardagan and Bayazet to her. The Izmail district and the areas of the Akkerman district of Bessarabia, taken from it by the Peace of Paris in 1856, went to Russia; Romania received the northern part of Dobruja.

The San Stefano Peace Treaty was not implemented. After Russian troops approached Constantinople, the Western powers launched a noisy campaign, ostensibly in defense of Turkey, but in reality in order to satisfy their own aggressive plans. Disraeli's government sent a military squadron to the Sea of ​​Marmara, carried out a partial mobilization of the fleet and launched chauvinistic propaganda in the country. The ruling circles of England particularly sharply objected to Russia's acquisitions in the Transcaucasus and to the creation of a “great Bulgaria,” which they regarded as a Russian outpost in the Balkans.

In turn, Austria-Hungary, which laid claim to the Bosnia and Herzegovina promised to it, openly opposed the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano.

The Prime Minister of Austria-Hungary, Count Andrássy, demanded the convening of a European conference and, in support of his position, began to mobilize in Dalmatia and the Danube regions.

Thus, having won a victory over Turkey, Russia found itself faced with the Anglo-Austrian coalition. The Russian government was not in a position to start a new war. The army was exhausted, supplies of military equipment were spent, and financial resources were sharply reduced. In addition, tsarism, even for reasons of internal politics, could not decide on a major war.

Russia's attempt to create difficulties for England in Afghanistan - by sending a military mission of General Stoletov to Kabul and advancing Russian troops to the Afghan border - did not lead to the desired goal: England did not give up the demand for a revision of the Treaty of San Stefano. The hopes of the tsarist government for diplomatic support from Germany also turned out to be in vain: at the end of February 1878, Bismarck spoke in favor of convening a congress, stipulating that he was only going to play the role of an “honest broker.”

Tsarist Russia, in order to split the coalition that was emerging against it, decided to conclude a backroom deal with its main enemy - England. On May 30, 1878, a secret agreement was signed in London, according to which Russia renounced the plan to create “Greater Bulgaria,” as well as some of its conquests in Asia Minor, and England withdrew its objections to the remaining terms of the Treaty of San Stefano.

At the same time, England managed to get Turkey to sign a convention on June 4, 1878, according to which, in exchange for a promise to help it against Russia, it received the opportunity to occupy the island of Cyprus, populated mainly by Greeks. Thus, England captured the most important strategic point in the eastern Mediterranean. In secret negotiations with Austria-Hungary, England pledged to support its claims to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

These agreements largely determined the balance of power at the European Congress, which was convened after Russia agreed to take part in it.

The International Congress opened on June 13, 1878 in Berlin. Russia, England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Turkey, Iran and the Balkan states were represented there. As a result of intense diplomatic struggle, the powers signed a month later, on July 13, 1878, the Berlin Treaty.

At the Berlin Congress, England and Austria-Hungary, with the support of Germany, achieved a significant change in the terms of the San Stefano Treaty to the disadvantage of the Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. Instead of “Great Bulgaria”, a virtually independent, but vassal in relation to the Sultan, the Bulgarian Principality was created, territorially limited in the south by the line of the Balkan Mountains. Southern Bulgaria (Eastern Rumelia) was granted partial autonomy within the Ottoman Empire, and Macedonia was completely returned to the rule of the Sultan. The independence of Montenegro, Serbia and Romania was confirmed, but in violation of the national interests of the South Slavs, Austria-Hungary received the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austro-Hungarian troops were also introduced into the Novo-Bazarsky sanjak, located between Serbia and Montenegro; this was done in order to prevent the unification of the two Slavic states. Austria-Hungary was also given control over the coast of Montenegro. The articles of the Peace of San Stefano about Dobruja and Bessarabia were confirmed. The size of the indemnity imposed on Turkey was reduced to 300 million rubles. In Asia, Russia received Kare, Ardagan and Batum; Bayazet returned to Turkey.

Thus, the tasks of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples were not fully resolved. Regions with a large non-Turkish population remained under Turkish rule (Southern Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Thessaly, Aegean Islands); Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied by Austria-Hungary. The Berlin Congress, by artificially redrawing the map of the Balkan Peninsula, created numerous reasons for new conflicts in the area and aggravation of the international situation as a whole. Even after their liberation, the Balkan countries remained an arena of rivalry among major European states. European powers interfered in their internal affairs and actively influenced their foreign policy. The Balkans became the powder keg of Europe.

Despite all this, the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. had great positive significance for the Balkan peoples. Its most important result was the elimination of Turkish oppression in most of the territory of the Balkan Peninsula, the liberation of Bulgaria and the formalization of the complete independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro. In this sense, the selfless struggle of the Russian troops, supported by units of the Serbian, Montenegrin and Romanian armies and detachments of Bulgarian volunteers, bore fruit.

2. Balkan states at the end of the 19th century.

Bulgaria in the first nine months after the end of the war was under the control of Russian authorities. In 1879, the Great National Assembly, convened in Tarnovo, adopted the Constitution of Bulgaria. It was a progressive constitution for its time. It proclaimed a constitutional monarchy with a unicameral parliament. Universal suffrage (for men) was introduced, basic bourgeois-democratic freedoms were declared - freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. Bulgaria's vassal dependence on Turkey was to be expressed only in the formal recognition of the suzerainty of the Sultan and in the payment of an annual tribute.

Romania and Serbia were proclaimed kingdoms: the first in 1881, the second in 1882.

Reunification of Bulgaria with Eastern Rumelia. "Bulgarian crisis" 1885-1886

The Great National Assembly elected Prince Alexander of Battenberg to the princely throne of Bulgaria, on whose candidacy Russia and other great powers agreed. Immediately after arriving in Bulgaria, Battenberg led a struggle against the Tarnovo Constitution, which he called “ridiculously liberal,” and against the liberal cabinet formed in accordance with this constitution. In 1881, taking advantage of the increased reaction in Russia in connection with the assassination of Alexander II and counting on the support of the new tsar, the prince carried out a coup d'etat: he removed the liberal government, arrested its members, and terminated the Tarnovo Constitution. Soon, two Russian generals who arrived from St. Petersburg joined the Bulgarian government. However, relations between Battenberg and the tsarist government deteriorated. The prince contributed to the subjugation of Bulgaria to Austrian influence, and the tsarist representatives sought to establish their own dictatorship in Bulgaria. Meanwhile, influential circles of the Bulgarian bourgeoisie, associated with Austrian capital, waged a struggle against Russian influence.

In particular, the struggle unfolded around railway construction projects in Bulgaria. The government of Tsarist Russia, for strategic reasons, sought to build a railway crossing Bulgaria from north to south. Austrian capital, trying to conquer the Balkan market, was interested in building a road in the direction from Vienna to Constantinople through Belgrade and Sofia. The Austrian project won. This further complicated relations between the tsarist government and Battenberg.

Then the prince resorted to a new political maneuver. He entered into an agreement with the liberal opposition and in 1883 restored the Tarnovo Constitution. Russian generals - members of the Bulgarian government were recalled by the tsar. From that time on, openly hostile relations were established between Battenberg and the tsarist government. The Bulgarian prince began to rely on the support of Austria-Hungary and England.

In September 1885, Bulgarian patriots in Plovdiv, the capital of Eastern Rumelia, overthrew the Turkish governor and announced the reunification of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria. Alexander Battenberg, using this revolutionary speech, proclaimed himself the prince of a united Bulgaria.

The reunification of Southern and Northern Bulgaria essentially meant only the correction of the injustice committed against the Bulgarian people at the Berlin Congress. But since this act strengthened the position of Prince Battenberg, the government of Tsarist Russia, contrary to its previous position, reacted sharply negatively to the unification of Bulgaria and protested against the violation of the Berlin Treaty. By order of Alexander III, all Russian officers were recalled from Bulgaria. In fact, there was a break between Russia and Bulgaria.

Soon the “Bulgarian crisis” was complicated by the intervention of other powers. At the instigation of Austria-Hungary, King Milan of Serbia demanded “compensation” from Bulgaria in connection with the increase in Bulgarian territory and, having received a refusal, began a war against Bulgaria. At the Battle of Slivnitsa in November 1885, the Bulgarians defeated the Serbian army. Only the ultimatum presented by Austria-Hungary to Battenberg prevented the transfer of hostilities to Serbian territory. Peace between Bulgaria and Serbia was concluded on the basis of maintaining the previous borders.

Following this, the Austrian and English governments, trying to complicate Russia's position in the Balkans and finally wrest Bulgaria from its influence, achieved an agreement between Turkey and Bulgaria, according to which Eastern Rumelia formally remained a province of Turkey, but the Sultan appointed a Bulgarian prince as governor of this province. Thus, in fact, Türkiye recognized the reunification of Northern and Southern Bulgaria.

In August 1886, conspiratorial officers, backed by tsarist diplomacy, arrested Battenberg and expelled him from the country. A few days later he returned, but Alexander III strongly opposed his restoration to the throne, and Battenberg had to leave Bulgaria forever. In September 1886, General Kaulbars came to Sofia as an emissary of the Tsar, who was supposed to agree with the leadership circles on the candidacy of a new protege of Tsarist Russia for the Bulgarian throne. The rude actions of the tsarist emissary led this time to the official rupture of Russian-Bulgarian relations.

In 1887, Austria-Hungary, with the support of Germany, achieved the election of Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the Bulgarian princely throne. Istanbulov, who became the head of the Bulgarian government, suppressed the pro-Russian opposition. For a long period, Austro-German influence established itself in Bulgaria. It was largely preserved even after the official “reconciliation” of Prince Ferdinand with the Russian court in 1896.

The “Bulgarian crisis” clearly showed how the situation in the Balkans became more complicated as a result of the intervention of European powers.

Socio-economic development of the Balkan countries

The liberation of the Balkan states from the Turkish yoke had the consequence of accelerating their capitalist development. In Bulgaria, over the course of several years (1880-1885), feudal land tenure was finally abolished: the land was taken away from the Turkish landowners and transferred, albeit for a large ransom, to the peasants. The development of capitalism in the agriculture of the Balkan countries led to the stratification of the countryside and the dispossession of a significant part of the peasantry; Bonded forms of rent - labor and sharecropping - were widespread. In Serbia, over the course of several years, from 1880 to 1887, the number of landless peasants increased from 17 to 22%, and in Bulgaria, 67% of peasants by 1897 owned a little more than a fifth of all cultivated land.

The peasantry, crushed by heavy redemption payments, suffering from state taxes, scarcity of land, and high rents, waged a constant struggle to improve their situation. The largest peasant uprising in the Balkans at the end of the 19th century. there was an uprising of Serbian peasants in the Timok (Zajchar) district in 1883. The armed peasants were supported by workers and artisans and resisted the royal army for several weeks. This uprising, like other peasant uprisings, ended in defeat.

Gradually, industry developed in the Balkan countries, but for the most part these were small enterprises engaged in the processing of agricultural raw materials and employing several dozen workers. The development of industry was seriously hampered by an acute lack of capital and competition from foreign goods. Imports of the Balkan countries consisted almost entirely of finished goods, and exports were mainly agricultural products and raw materials.

Foreign capital entered Bulgaria in the form of government loans; only a tiny fraction of this money was invested in industrial development. The expansion of foreign capital into Serbia and Romania took place mainly in the form of investments in the mining industry. Austro-Hungarian capital was most active in the Balkans at this time. By the end of the century, Serbia had become an agricultural and raw materials appendage of the Austro-Hungarian industry. 90% of Serbian exports went to Austria-Hungary. Only in Romania, which switched to a policy of protectionism in the second half of the 1980s, did industry develop at a somewhat faster pace. Oil production, for example, increased from 16 thousand tons in 1881 to 250 thousand tons in 1900, but in this industry the position of foreign capital was extremely strong from the very beginning.

Greece also remained an agricultural country. 75% of its exports were agricultural goods - currants, tobacco, etc. It did not have its own heavy industry. In the 80s, railway construction intensified, the tonnage of the merchant fleet increased (almost four times over the last two decades of the 19th century), foreign trade turnover increased, and large ports appeared (the population of Piraeus increased from several hundred people to 70 thousand over half a century). But this development was largely the result of an influx of foreign capital, mainly in the form of government loans. Greece's economic and political dependence on the great powers increased enormously. Foreign diplomatic representatives encouraged party feuds, bribed politicians, and sought a change of government.

Using their influence, the great powers prevented the implementation of Greek national demands. After the declaration of Greek independence, a significant territory with a Greek population still remained under Turkish rule. The issue of reunification of these regions with Greece has been the most pressing issue in the political life of the country for many years.

The Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, although Greece did not participate in it, had favorable consequences for the Greeks. Taking advantage of the weakening of Turkey, Greece managed, after long negotiations, to obtain from it in 1881 the concession of Thessaly and the Arta district in Epirus. However, even after this, many more Greeks lived outside the borders of the Greek state than within its borders.

Labor and socialist movement

Given the weak level of capitalist development, the proletariat of the Balkan countries at the end of the century was still small in number. In Serbia in 1900 there were only 10 thousand industrial workers, making up approximately 0.3% of its total population. In Bulgaria at the same time, 4.7 thousand workers worked at large enterprises, i.e. 0.1% of the population. In Romania, enterprises with more than 25 workers employed 28 thousand workers, less than 0.5% of the population. In Greece, by the end of the 70s, the number of workers in industrial enterprises and craft workshops was 43 thousand people - 2.5% of the population.

The financial situation of the workers, their life, and working conditions were extremely difficult. The prominent Romanian writer Eminescu described the situation of workers in tobacco factories in the following way in 1876: “These long dark days of 12-14 hour labor are not interrupted by either rest or holiday... Even the beast of burden is spared during illness, his strength is taken into account... The situation is different with a person. He can die in peace, there will always be someone else to take his place.”

In the 70-80s, the labor movement in the Balkans was spontaneous and took only its first steps; Participants in numerous strikes, as a rule, put forward purely economic demands. The few socialist circles that emerged during these years aimed at studying and promoting Marxism.

In the early 90s, the first workers' parties were formed in the Balkan countries. The strongest social democratic party in the Balkans was created in Bulgaria in 1891 under the leadership of an outstanding figure in the socialist movement, Dimitar Blagoev. Expelled from Russia by the tsarist government, Blagoev returned to Bulgaria, founded a number of socialist circles and became editor of the newspaper Rabotnik. The Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, under the leadership of Blagoev, quickly gained influence among the workers. Blagoev and other socialists introduced the works of Marx and Engels to the Bulgarian workers. In 1891, the Manifesto of the Communist Party was first published in Bulgarian.

In 1892-1893 The Social Democratic Party of Romania was formed. However, its program and activities did not go further than general democratic demands; reformism dominated the party. In 1899, a large group of Social Democratic leaders joined the ranks of the bourgeois-landowner liberal party. The Social Democratic Party suffered a heavy blow and ceased to exist for a time.

The first workers' union in Greece was created by shipbuilders Fr. Saros (Sir) in 1879. At the end of the 19th century. Other workers' organizations also emerged. Since the 70-80s, socialist ideas began to spread in the country. Workers' movement figures P. Drakulis and S. Kalergis played a major role in this. In 1890, Kalergis founded the “Central Socialist Association” and in the same year began publishing the newspaper “Socialist”. Still, at the end of the 19th century. the labor and socialist movement in Greece remained very immature; socialists were strongly influenced by petty-bourgeois ideology.

In Serbia, socialist ideas became widespread back in the 70s. The newspaper Radnik (Worker), published by the revolutionary democrat Svetozar Markovic, published a chapter from Capital on its pages. In 1872, the Manifesto of the Communist Party was also translated into Serbian. During these years, the first trade unions emerged. In 1887, the Union of Craftsmen was created, which was soon transformed into the Union of Craftsmen and Workers. At first, petty-bourgeois radicals enjoyed significant influence in it, but soon the leadership of the “Union” passed to the socialists. In the mid-90s, socialist newspapers “Sotsial-demokrat”, “Radničke novine” (“Workers’ Newspaper”) and in 1900 “Napred” (“Forward”) began to be created. The socialist played a major role in organizing the Serbian labor movement Andria Bankovich. In 1893, the Union sent its representative to the International Socialist Congress in Zurich.

Uprising in Crete. Greco-Turkish War 1897

Among the Greek population of the areas remaining under the yoke of the Sultan, a movement for reunification with Greece developed. It was especially strong on the island of Crete, where major uprisings had occurred more than once. In 1896, the Greek population of the island again began an armed struggle against Turkish rule, and in February 1897 the rebels proclaimed the annexation of Crete to Greece.

Events in Crete prompted the Greek government to send a detachment of troops there to support the rebels. In response, the Great Powers declared the autonomy of Crete “under the auspices of Europe”; English, French, Italian and Russian troops occupied the island. At the same time, Türkiye opened military operations against Greece. The Greco-Turkish War began. It lasted only one month. Volunteers from various countries arrived to help the Greeks, including Garibaldi’s son, Ricciotti. Thanks to the great superiority of forces and the military unpreparedness of Greece, Türkiye won. Greece had to withdraw its troops from Crete and agree to pay an indemnity to the Turkish government. To ensure the payment of this indemnity, an international commission was created, at the disposal of which all income from Greek customs and revenues from state monopolies (for salt, tobacco, kerosene, matches, etc.) were transferred. Thus, the Greek economy found itself under even tighter foreign control than before.

However, Turkey, despite the defeat of Greece, actually lost its dominance over Crete. Soon after the end of the Greco-Turkish War, the Greek prince George was appointed High Commissioner of Crete at the suggestion of Russia. At the same time, the great powers retained their military units in Crete, which were entrusted with the task of maintaining the status quo, that is, preventing the reunification of the island with Greece.

How can you characterize Russian-Bulgarian relations today? How is Bulgaria trying to untie the historical knot tied by the 500-year Ottoman yoke? Are Bulgarians grateful to Russia for liberation?

Bulgaria choosing between Turkey and Russia?

Celebrating liberation from the Ottoman yoke

— President Recep Erdogan was invited to celebrate liberation from the Ottoman yoke, but Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited. How would you comment on this?

“I can’t imagine how our president will be on holidays with President Rosen Plevneliev, who declares that he is proud to oppose Russia. In general, the latest statements by Bulgarian leaders - the President, Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of War - towards Russia are extremely hostile in nature, there is a constant broadcast that Russia is to blame for everything, Russia is bringing war, that Bulgaria is ready for anything the name of Europe.

On the other hand, the case with Erdogan should not be viewed through the prism of the current crisis in Russian-Turkish relations. Because the Bulgarian leadership, we must give it its due, pursued this policy even before the Russian-Turkish crisis.

The Bulgarian president refused to come to Moscow to celebrate Victory Day. The Bulgarian Prime Minister thwarted a number of Russian-Bulgarian projects, including "". I can say that the Bulgarian political leadership is consistently pursuing an anti-Russian policy. Whether Bulgaria needs this should be decided by the Bulgarian people and the Bulgarian political class.

But the Bulgarian political class is small, and my attitude is that its upper ranks have long been controlled by European structures, and the American ambassador, in my opinion, in Bulgaria feels, if not a vizier pasha, then a governor general. I have a feeling that Bulgaria no longer exists as an independent state, that is, it has all the institutions of an independent state, but it is controlled from the outside.

— Tell us what happened on March 3, 1878? Why is this date celebrated in Bulgaria?

— There is a position of the leader of the Turkish community that under the Ottomans everything was fine, and Bulgaria lived the best life, and then uninvited Russian guests came, and everything became bad. In fact, the Bulgarians, Christians, were officially second-class citizens. The testimony of a Christian in court was not equal to the testimony of a Muslim, a Christian had no right to bear arms, he could be killed, he could be deprived of property. Strictly speaking, these were people without rights.

The official term for Christians in the Ottoman Empire is translated as cattle. This was such prosperity. The Bulgarians were Turkish cattle. That is, for 500 years, Bulgaria was under Turkish yoke; as a result of the conquest, a huge number of cultural monuments were destroyed. And in the 60s, the process of national revival began. To some extent, this was facilitated by the fact that at that time the Danube vilayet was ruled by Midhat Pasha, who believed that it was necessary to create some kind of unity between these “cattle” and the Turks, and gave the Bulgarians the opportunity to create schools.

But at the same time there was a fierce suppression by the Turks of any discontent. The uprising of 1876 was suppressed with monstrous cruelty; somewhere between 5-7 thousand people were killed. Entire areas in which there was a Bulgarian population were emptied as a result of mass destruction and eviction of people. And Muslims settled in these areas.

And when the next stage of physical destruction of the Bulgarians began, Russia, led by Alexander II, intervened. It must be said that there were a lot of people who were against this intervention. They reasoned like this: why do we need to shed Russian blood in this Russian-Turkish war, why do we need liberated Bulgaria? Some people said that this gift would not end well.

When the war was already in full swing, in November 1877, our great writer Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote in his diary that our brothers the Slavs would never forgive us for liberating them, and as soon as these Slavs are recognized by Europe, they will immediately betray us and will take revenge. Everything that Dostoevsky said applies, first of all, to the Bulgarian political class. There are also Bulgarian people who, in general, have a good attitude towards Russia, but follow their political class. And the war was very difficult, about 250 thousand Russians died and were wounded.

— So what is the name of this holiday of the liberation of Bulgaria today?

— San Stefano, and before it was called the Day of Liberation from the Ottoman Yoke. On January 31, 1878, negotiations for a truce began in Andrianople, in Edirne, Turkey. A truce was concluded, but after this unpleasant events began.

First, Geoffrey Hornby's English squadron entered the Sea of ​​Marmara. This was a threat of intervention by England, and potentially Austria-Hungary. The situation was very difficult. And in order to speed up the negotiations, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder moved the headquarters to San Stefano, a dacha suburb of Constantinople. It was located 12 kilometers from the Turkish capital. In my opinion, Ataturk International Airport is located there now. And there, in conditions when there was a threat directly to the capital, the Turks accelerated the signing of a peace treaty.

According to this peace treaty, the Principality of Bulgaria was to be created - from the Black Sea to the Adriatic. Bulgaria was revived, despite the fact that Bulgaria then had to maintain vassal dependence on Turkey, which amounted only to the formal payment of tribute to the Sultan.

And then Russia found itself isolated; it was forced to agree to revise the terms of this treaty in Berlin. At the Berlin Congress, the position of Bulgaria changed very significantly; it was actually divided into three parts. But Bulgaria still survived. For the Bulgarian national consciousness, San Stefano Bulgaria has always been a kind of guiding star, an ideal that Bulgarian politicians have always tried to achieve.

Bulgaria: people separately, elites separately

— I read the comments of the Bulgarians themselves about those invited to the holiday, and there, probably 80 percent, if not 90, consider the rulers to be traitors. They write that we cannot treat those who conquered us this way, and we must be friends with the Russians. Will there ever be consolidation between the people and the government of Bulgaria?

- Never, because that’s how it is done there. Take, for example, Prime Minister Boyko Borisov. Let's remember the crisis of February 2013, when a prominent right-wing politician suddenly realized that electricity was not being taken from the socket and responded by raising prices to such an extent that people could not pay.

In a country so life-loving, an epidemic of political suicides and a huge mass of protests began. Boyko Borisov said that he had a heart attack and fled to the hospital.

There was also a situation in Bulgaria, when power lay and no one wanted to be a technical prime minister. Nobody wanted to be suicidal. But nevertheless, after such a catastrophic failure, after such a loss of face, they still managed to sort it all out and again bring Boyko Borisov to power through the coalition. Because you can not give a damn about everything, but after a certain time you can come out and promise something again.

Politicians rarely keep their promises. These are different things - promises and real policies. Their interests are connected with completely different places. For example, the dream of getting into the European Parliament, certain opportunities that European structures, institutions, etc. provide. Understand that in the Balkans the consciousness is a little different, including the political consciousness. A person can feel good about Russia and at the same time choose a Russophobic politician because he thinks he will benefit.

— In Sofia, as I understand it, the Turkish community is quite influential.

— As for the Turks, just as we have our own tradition of looking at these events, the Turks also have their own tradition. If for the Bulgarians this is 500 years of slavery, then the Turks believe that this is 500 years of life. They considered Bulgaria their country. I think that in another 100-150 years, it would have happened there, as with the Armenians and Georgians. They would simply destroy part of the people, and assimilate others.

— How can the Russian side build relations with Bulgarian politicians?

— Here we need to build relationships both with politicians and with the people of Bulgaria. But these relationships are not built through organizing collective drinking parties. Relationships must be built for the future: today he is a simple student in Russia, and tomorrow he is a member of the government in Bulgaria. It is necessary to support the pro-Russian forces in Bulgaria so that tomorrow they can declare themselves.

Prepared for publication by Maria Snytkova

On March 3, Bulgaria celebrates Liberation Day from the Ottoman yoke. This is one of the main national holidays of the country, established in honor of the end of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878. On March 3, 1878, in the suburb of Constantinople San Stefano (now Yeşilköy), where Russian troops advancing towards the capital of the Ottoman Empire stopped, representatives of Russia and Turkey signed a peace treaty. One of his conditions was the re-establishment of the Bulgarian state.

In addition, Turkey was forced to recognize the independence of Serbia, the United Principality of Moldavia and Wallachia (the future Romania) and Montenegro, which were allies of Russia in that war.

As Associate Professor of Nizhny Novgorod State University noted in an interview with RT. N.I. Lobachevsky Maxim Medovarov, the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and the San Stefano Peace Treaty “awakened the Balkans”, influencing not only the processes in Bulgaria.

“Both the Albanian and Macedonian problems were first identified in San Stefano,” the expert notes.

It was in 1878, Medovarov emphasizes, with the formation of the Albanian League of Prizren that the movement for the creation of an Albanian state began.

• Signing of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878
• Wikimedia Commons

Macedonia, which, according to the San Stefano Peace Treaty, was supposed to become part of Bulgaria, according to the results of the Berlin Congress that followed this treaty, remained part of Ottoman Turkey. The result was the growth of a national movement in a radical form and the creation in 1896 of the Internal Macedonian-Odrinian Revolutionary Organization, which began a guerrilla war against the Turks, and after the annexation of Macedonia to Serbia in 1913, against the Serbs. The most famous victim of the Macedonian militants was the King of Yugoslavia, Alexander I Karadjordjevic, who was killed in Marseille in 1934. The Abwehr and Croatian Ustashes actively helped the Macedonians in organizing this assassination attempt.

As a result of the Berlin Congress, imposed on Russia by the European powers, Bulgaria itself was also affected, its territory being reduced by more than half compared to the terms of the San Stefano Peace Treaty. However, already in the 1880s, the country reoriented its policy from the Russian Empire to the states of Europe.

As Medovarov noted, the social base on which the Bulgarian political elite was created played a key role in this process.

“Bulgaria was, in fact, created in San Stefano, and the entire Bulgarian political class was created from the intelligentsia or lower-class merchants, there was simply no one else,” the expert notes. “They all received their education either in the West or in Russia among Russian nihilistic revolutionaries.”

A striking example is the Prime Minister and Regent of Bulgaria Stefan Stambolov, expelled from the Odessa Theological Seminary in 1873 for his connections with revolutionaries. It was this former Russian seminarian who most actively fought against Russian influence in the country.

Paradoxically, the Russian Empire itself also contributed to the distance between Bulgaria and Russia.

“After San Stefano, the Russian authorities imposed on Bulgaria in 1879 the liberal so-called Tarnovo Constitution, which removed the Orthodox clergy from the levers of government - that part of the educated population that could be our support. All power passed into the hands of revolutionary intellectuals and their parties,” says Medovarov.

According to him, this constitution played a fatal role in the formation of the pro-Western orientation of the Bulgarian political class. Under the first prince of Bulgaria, Alexander I of Battenberg, the Bulgarian politician favored an alliance with Great Britain, and after the accession of Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the Bulgarian throne in 1897, with Germany and Austria.

The people are silent

“Many Bulgarians accused Russia of not conquering Macedonia and other lands for them,” Medovarov notes another reason for the cooling of the Bulgarian elite towards Russia. “Our country was accused of insufficiently defending Bulgarian interests at the Berlin Congress of 1879.”

The fact that Russia did not support Bulgaria during the Second Balkan War of 1913, when the country was attacked by Serbia, Greece, Romania and Turkey, according to the historian, finally brought Bulgaria into the camp of countries allied with Germany. Later, in two world wars, Sofia tried to regain control over Macedonia lost after the Second Balkan War. After Soviet troops liberated Bulgaria, a communist regime was established in the country. Now this is another reason for criticism of Russia by pro-Western liberals.

“Resentments accumulated, but these were grievances on the part of a certain part of the Bulgarian political class,” Medovarov emphasizes, “The people have always been on the side of Russia. The masses have always been pro-Russian, but had no voice in politics.”

This is confirmed, according to the historian, by the fact that reviews of Russia from the peasants who made up the majority of the Bulgarian population, as well as priests, were positive at the end of the 19th century, although the authorities in Sofia were already oriented towards the West. And now, according to a study by the American sociological center Pew Research Center, conducted in May 2017, 56% of Bulgarians believe that a strong Russia is necessary in order to resist the West.

• Residents of Sofia greet Soviet soldiers, 1944
• RIA News

Medovarov recalls that in 1940, a mass movement began in Bulgaria to conclude a non-aggression pact with Soviet Russia - after the pro-German government came to power.

“Almost half the country signed up for an alliance with the USSR, but the authorities completely ignored this,” the expert notes.

As Bulgarian political scientist Plamen Miletkov, chairman of the board of the Eurasian Institute of Geopolitics and Economics, said in an interview with RT, a similar situation is observed to this day.

“Ordinary people are with Russia,” the expert notes. “But politicians sometimes say one thing and do another. They fulfill American orders in Bulgaria and the Balkans. You will now see how Bulgaria will work with Macedonia, with Kosovo, with Greece, so that Bulgaria becomes a leader in the Balkans, but this is the wrong course.”

According to the expert, the main goal of the Bulgarian policy to draw Macedonia into the EU and NATO is to create obstacles to plans to carry out the European part of the Turkish Stream through this country to the Balkans. However, this, like Sofia’s refusal from South Stream, is in the interests not of Bulgaria, but of the United States.

“Now in Bulgaria there is American propaganda that Russia did not liberate Bulgaria and did nothing, and there was no war at all,” the expert notes.

Hopes for change

Bulgaria is celebrating the 140th anniversary of the restoration of statehood today as a member of NATO, a military-political bloc currently in . However, for the first time since 2003, the country's leadership invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to celebrate the anniversary of the country's liberation from the Ottoman yoke. This was done by President Rumen Radev, elected in November 2016, who advocates establishing friendly ties with Russia.

And although the President of the Russian Federation will not come to Bulgaria this year on March 3, as noted by the Russian Ambassador in Sofia Anatoly Makarov, it is quite possible that he will visit this country within a year. Makarov himself will represent Russia at the festive events. The day before, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' arrived in the country on a special visit.

Although President Radev constantly talks about the need to lift the sanctions that Bulgaria, like other EU countries, have imposed against Russia, the government, which holds the real power, is in no hurry to raise this issue. In September 2017, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said that he could not agree with the thesis that Russia is not an enemy of Bulgaria.

• President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev
• Reuters
• Tony Gentile

“How can you say in military doctrine that Russia is not our enemy and still remain a member of NATO? - the Prime Minister said on local television. - This is a contradiction. Our doctrine says that if war breaks out, we will fight on the side of NATO.”

At the same time, the prime minister emphasized that he is against strengthening in the Black Sea and for cooperation with Russia in the tourism and energy fields.

“Boyko Borisov wants to work with Russia, but does what the American ambassador orders,” Miletkov notes.

According to the expert, the United States may have dirt on the Bulgarian leader. In the early 1990s, he headed a security agency that was suspected of having ties to the underworld. A CIA cable published by WikiLeaks dated May 9, 2006 alleged that Borisov may be involved in drug trafficking. The Prime Minister of Bulgaria himself denies this information.

• Prime Minister of Bulgaria Boyko Borisov
• Reuters
• Yves Herman

However, according to the Bulgarian expert, it is likely that in 2018 there will be a change in power in Bulgaria. Now Borisov's government relies on a shaky coalition between his GERB party (Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria) and the nationalist United Patriots bloc, which, in turn, has disagreements regarding relations with Russia.

“I think that at the end of the year, in November-December, the government will change, there will be new elections and we will work normally with Russia,” says Miletkov.

“For us now the situation is favorable in the sense that, at least, the people are loyal to us, and these people have shown their abilities by electing an adequate president,” Medovarov believes.

According to the expert, Bulgaria’s exit from US influence is “not only a Balkan, but a global issue.”

“If the American grip begins to really weaken throughout the world, then we will have more opportunities in the Balkans,” says the political scientist.