From the Ottoman Empire to this day. What allies do we have in the Balkans… Eng. Alexander Tatsov, who is an international analyst at the Union of Reserve Officers “Atlantic“, speaks to FACT.
- Mr. Tatsov, at the beginning of March we celebrate the Liberation of Bulgaria. This, of course, is related to Russia. Which Russia is more terrible - the one 147 years ago, or the one today?
- There is hardly any difference. It was a more dangerous time then, because Bulgaria, in the fatal year of 1913, lost its allies, as a result of the treacherous policy of the Russophile governments of Geshov and Danev. Now the Russian Empire is no less aggressive, but we are members of NATO - the most powerful military alliance in history... Furthermore, it is not correct to speak of a complete and final "Liberation of Bulgaria", since in Berlin in 1878 the country received the status of a two-part vassal of the Ottoman Empire, in the form of a tributary principality and an autonomous region, as this was a common initiative of all the Great Powers (the San Stefano Preliminary Treaty was rejected by the other powers and had no legal or political consequences, except that it marked the beginning of the fragmentation of the Bulgarian national territory). In fact, ONLY part of Bulgaria was liberated at that time (40-45% of the national territory) and therefore it is correct to speak of the “Partial liberation of Bulgaria“, as a result of the Treaty of Berlin“.
To correct this situation, Bulgaria waged five wars and lost only killed – 200,000 soldiers and officers, the same number of civilians and hundreds of thousands of refugees. The failure of the Constantinople Conference of Ambassadors in 1876-77, where two autonomous Bulgarian regions were created, practically on the entire Bulgarian territory, proved fatal.
The date of March 3, 1878 had no influence whatsoever on the political status quo on the peninsula,
nor on the fate of the Bulgarian people. This was a diplomatic blunder of Russian diplomacy, whose architect was Count Ignatiev. This caused a strong reaction among the other Great Powers, because it violated the preliminary agreements by which the powers gave carte blanche to Russia to wage war with the Omani Empire, on the grounds of violating the agreements of the Constantinople Conference (for example, the Reichstadt Treaty with Austria-Hungary before the war, in 1878). Because of this blunder, Count Ignatiev was dismissed from the diplomatic service in the Russian Foreign Ministry…
- I deliberately mentioned only the Liberation in the first question. It is striking that in recent years there has been talk only of liberation, but not liberation from what. Why is this so, why do we omit the words Turkish slavery…
- Because “slavery“, in the true sense of the word, during the Ottoman rule did not exist in relation to the mass of dependent Christian population (zimmi, raja). Slavery did exist, however, among captives and kidnapped Christians, who were sold on slave markets in the empire and in other countries. In general, since the establishment of the Arab Caliphate, slavery has been practiced on a massive scale among captives and kidnapped persons, mainly Christians… This is how, for example, the modern Turkish nation was formed, among which Europeans predominate (descendants of enslaved Christians, as well as those who converted to Islam in one way or another), and Turks are fewer (a Christian slave who converts to Islam has a huge chance of gaining freedom)…
Otherwise, the dependent Christian population were not slaves, they had private property (and also ownership of land) and, after fulfilling their obligations to the state and the governor, they could work for themselves.
Slavery existed, for example, for a full 300 years. in relation to the dependent (serf) population in the Russian Empire, reaching up to 80% of the total population. The serf population had neither rights nor property and were sold like animals, in slave markets, and later by advertisements in newspapers…
Also, the adjective "Turkish" is unacceptable from a scientific point of view. Already with the arrival of Osman's group in Asia Minor, the Ottoman Beylik was created, which later became the Ottoman Sultanate/Ottoman Empire, as it is officially known. The Bulgarian population usually calls the Ottoman Muslim population (of various ethnic origins - Arabs, Persians, etc.) "Turks", since they come into contact with mainly Turkic-speaking representatives of the authorities and the Muslim population, and moreover, they do not know the official name of the state, due to poor knowledge of the language. The term "Osmanliy" is less commonly used. In the West, the name "Turkish" (the sultan and the population of the empire collectively) is also often used, which has a negative and contemptuous connotation. In addition, the Turkish ethnicity was a minority among the Muslim population, and the official administrative language was “Ottoman Turkish“ with strong Arabic borrowings…
In a word, the correct scientific term is “Ottoman rule“.
- The interpretation in history textbooks is also changing. Is there a right and wrong interpretation when we talk about history?
- Initially, among the population and as a result of the defects of historical education, incorrect and distorted views about the economic and political structure of the Ottoman Empire spread.
This is an absolute theocratic (with religious rule) monarchy, where Muslim laws (Sharia) or acts consistent with them prevail. All subjects were subject to these laws, including Christians, who were thus severely discriminated against (for example, a Muslim witness was always preferred to a Christian witness). Christians additionally paid a special poll tax, the "jizyah," which symbolized the mercy shown by the conquerors towards the "infidels" by sparing their lives and property (the tax was provided for by Sharia law). They also paid a special land tax, symbolizing the mercy shown by the conquerors towards the “infidels”, allowing them to use and inherit land that was in principle the property of the state/Sultan (the tax was also provided for by the Sharia).
The economic basis of the empire was the timar system, in which the owner of a given timar - a plot of land (spahia, timariot), cultivated by dependent peasants, was obliged, upon a call from the authorities, to appear at a military muster with his own weapons and to bring with him a certain number of armed fighters, commensurate with the size of the timar.
This economic system (borrowed from old Roman models and improved), highly productive for its time, allowed the empire to exert an unceasing and aggressive conquest pressure in all geographical directions, until it spread across three continents. In Europe, the Ottomans reached Vienna twice…
The crisis of the Timari system also began the decline of the Ottoman Empire…
- What is behind the desire to demolish the Monument to the Soviet Army? We talk about liberation, but we are pushing monuments…
- There is a misunderstanding or a conscious substitution of theses here. Monuments have never been “history“! They simply represent a view of their creators, regarding some historical fact or person. For example, monuments to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin express the attitude of their creators (the respective state/ideology) towards these persons. So monuments to controversial persons appear to be temporary signs… With the change of political systems, controversial monuments usually disappear. Only history, and after a sufficiently long time, can determine the value of a monument.
History – these are the written documents and preserved artifacts, publicly analyzed by professional historians. Sometimes these analyzes take years, even centuries, until passions pass and a consensus is reached among historians (reference - the historical assessment of the French Revolution of 1789, which is not yet fully completed). This is how real history is written!
In Bulgaria, for example, the victorious communists, after 1947, destroyed no less than 30% of the military monuments to those who fell in the Wars of National Liberation and Unification (a fact that is not observed in ANY other country in the world), including the largest - in Sofia. In Pirin Macedonia, at the same time, 100% of these monuments were destroyed/blown up, including those of heroes of the IMRO and even their graves (the grave of Todor Alexandrov was also blown up). And so far, the listed monuments have not been 100% restored.
Unlike the monuments to national heroes, in our country there are also monuments to conquerors/occupiers (Ottoman conquerors and Soviet occupiers), as well as to proven traitors and apostates…
So behind the demolition of the Memorial to the Red Liberation Army – MOCHA (later, with the renaming of the “Red Army“ to “Soviet“, it became PSA – Monument to the Soviet Army), lies the restoration of the honor and dignity of the Bulgarian state, because NOWHERE in the world is there such a phenomenon – any state maintaining a monument to a conqueror/occupier…
- Today the world is changing daily. Military alliances are being formed in the Balkans. Serbia and Hungary, and in another format Croatia, Albania and Kosovo are coming together. Why is this happening?
- This is a natural process. A military alliance is not being formed between Serbia and Hungary. Serbia is an old and main ally of the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation. Orban's Hungary is a member of NATO, but this does not prevent it from playing its own, very complex and risky game, in the interest of only Hungary and Hungarian nationalism... On the other hand, Croatia and Albania are united through NATO, but this did not prevent Croatia, Albania and Kosovo from signing a declaration of cooperation in defense. Serbia naturally reacted sharply to the decision. It seems that the reason for the cooperation is the uncertainty of the participation of the United States in the defense of Europe. In any case, this act is beneficial for Bulgaria, because it effectively blocks Serbia, which has been pursuing an active anti-Bulgarian policy for 33 years.
Otherwise, Bulgaria should take a position on this union, but with the current coalition government, this seems impossible (most likely, the BSP, as traditionally pro-Russian and pro-Serbian, will be against it)
- We Balkans have a strange temper, but is there a reason for countries to unite on a military basis? Is there a threat in the Balkans?
- Huge! The Balkan Peninsula occupies a strategic position at the gateway between Europe and the Near (Middle) East and has been a target for Russian interests for centuries. In the future, especially if some kind of peace treaty is concluded between Russia and Ukraine, these aspirations can only expand… Of course, they do not have to be reduced to military intervention (although this should not be ruled out). We are mainly talking about hybrid threats.
- And where is Bulgaria's place in this situation. Hungary and Serbia are definitely Russian-leaning, while Croatia, Albania and Kosovo look to NATO and the EU…
- We have a vital need for allies in the Balkans so that the fatal year 1913 is not repeated. To begin with, we have potential natural allies with whom our interests coincide. With Albania (common history of struggles against Serbian intervention in Macedonia), Croatia (common enemy in the person of Serbia), the same applies to Kosovo.
With Hungary we have more than a hundred years of mutual sympathy – Hungarian nationalists of the 19th century believed that the ancient Bulgarians were related to the Hungarians. For now, however, closer ties with Hungary are hardly possible, because Orban is more concerned about good relations with Serbia, where a large Hungarian minority lives (and Hungarians abroad are one of Orban's main concerns).
It is also possible to establish closer ties with Romania, where, as a result of centuries-old anti-Russian sentiments, for the first time the close Serbian-Romanian ties (existing since 1913) have been practically severed, due to the de facto Serbian-Russian military alliance. This may be a good opportunity to secure ourselves against Serbia.
We can also work on closer ties with Turkey. However, we must bear in mind that from there we can expect a strengthening of Turkish nationalism, which will prove to be a great threat to Bulgaria, given that we are left without other allies in the Balkans, in the event of a possible collapse (God forbid!) of NATO. Let us also not forget that Turkey is working insidiously against us on our own territory, by economically controlling Southern Bulgaria and inciting separatist sentiments among the Pomak population (with the support of the MRF-Dogan).
With regard to Greece, we must pursue a more responsible national policy, especially with regard to the Bulgarian minority there (absolutely forgotten by Bulgaria, i.e. by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), as well as with regard to existing and future unequal treaties for the waters of Mesta, Arda, Struma, Maritsa (the same applies to Turkey, with regard to the waters of Tundzha and Maritsa). It should not be forgotten that water will be the most valuable resource of the 21st century, more valuable than all other underground resources.
Our relations with North Macedonia are the most complicated. As a result of the erroneous Bulgarian policy (led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) in Europe, and in the rest of the world, the opinion prevails that the Macedonian thesis of the Skopje authorities is correct and historically justified. The reason is that our thesis is not heard at all, because no one is propagating it. And at the same time, North Macedonian emissaries (of a country with a population of 1.5 million!) are roaming around Europe and the whole world. They are establishing departments of the “Macedonian language“, publishing books, giving speeches, organizing meetings and other propaganda events…
And from our side - deafening silence.
It is natural that the European and world public (which has long forgotten the Macedonian events of the first third of the 20th century, which shook the world) will decide that if we do not speak up, then we are cowards, because we are not right…
Only a nationally responsible and patriotic Bulgarian government can possibly repair Bulgarian-Macedonian relations, and that will be very difficult, because for the Skopje rulers, improving relations with Bulgaria is tantamount to a death sentence, since the invented “Macedonian identity“, thanks to which they hold power, will be exposed to threat.