/Pogled.info/ “The enemies of the hero Spisarevski, today are our allies from NATO”
Ivaylo Dimanov
The day before yesterday, a fellow student of mine, currently living in Germany, forwarded me an article from “Radio Liberty” trying to interweave our national holiday, March 3, with the Kremlin’s current policy towards Bulgaria. The article is in Russian (“Day of separation. Russophile myths and the Kremlin’s policy in Bulgaria”), the author has a Russian name and is another “shot” (I would clarify – blank) of the Western propaganda machine in its information war against Russia.
In the article, facts and propaganda are heavily intertwined for maximum audience manipulation – a technique typical of the Cold War (post WWII) Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty style. For example, the date of the signing of the Peace of San Stefano (March 3) is presented as “the beginning of the subsequent enslavement of Bulgaria by Russia, which continued intermittently until the fall of the communist regime.” I wonder when in our history there was “enslavement” of Bulgaria by Russia? As of March 3, 1878, the historical facts were unequivocal – the enslaver was the Ottoman Empire, and the liberator was Russia. And in the next century and a half there will be no new enslavement of our country. Except for some temporary military-political alliances – two fatal ones with Germany (the Kaiser’s and the Führer’s), one disintegrating one under the leadership of the former Soviet Union, and one current one with the new master from the White House and his NATO wards. But that doesn’t count as enslavement, does it, Euro-Atlanticians?
The article quotes the Bulgarian
„portal faktor.bg”, according to whom the date of March 3 is “disputed and discredited”.
To which I will object that “faktor.bg” does not determine public opinion in the country, because for the rest of the Bulgarians it is a national holiday.
Further, the author of the article refers to the confession of Count Shuvalov (general and diplomat of Tsarist Russia at the end of the last century) to the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, how “Russia did not give a penny for Bulgaria, Bosnia or any to be another country, but in fact was interested in the Straits”. I would say that Lord Disraeli could have admitted the same about England’s attitude towards Bulgaria (and towards all the Balkan countries at that time), if he was not genetically hypocritical as an Anglo-Saxon politician. Could it be that the Great European Powers, who imposed the destructive Treaty of Neuilly on us – Great Britain, France, Italy, gave “five pence” to Bulgaria? Why don’t we brand them and take care of them today? Moreover, these countries have never liberated us.
Speaking of liberation, the author from Radio Svoboda gives an absurd quote from our late historian (Plamen Tsvetkov), who stated: “Like the ancient slogan ‘Divide and rule’, the Russian Empire is expanding under the motto ‘Liberate and rule.’ I find such wording stupid – why then did the great powers of the West not use this strategy (of liberation)? Did they not want to rule? Or has the historian discovered a century and a half Russian geopolitical patent?
And then, as it should be, it is the turn of the well-worn trump with the “Bulgarian Gulag”. Interestingly, what is his connection (if at all the latter can be defined as such) with the events of the Russian-Turkish war of the last century?
Following are the criticisms of Ambassador Mitrofanova and Patriarch of All Rus Kirill towards the rulers of our country (in different years), defined by our politicians as unacceptable. I will point out that whatever these messages are today – (un)acceptable or controversial, they in no way make the historical event of March 3, which led to the liberation of our country and its subsequent independence, meaningless. And what post facto said Valery Simeonov (he is also mentioned in the article) to the Russian patriarch, it is irrelevant – Simeonov was an elementary first-rate politician and today rarely anyone remembers him (and thank God!).
What contemporary Russian politicians have said about the current situation in Bulgaria also has no connection with the historical events of the Russo-Turkish war (Vladimir Solovyov, Pyotr Tolstoy, Dmitry Medvedev are quoted in the article). Otherwise, V. Solovyov is right that “the political leadership of Bulgaria are jerks, completely subordinated to the West” – this is how our Euro-Atlantic rulers present themselves to the Bulgarian citizens. And for the coalition “PP – DB” (it is also quoted) with the same power (but with the opposite dependence) one can say what they accuse the “Russian fifth column” of in our country – the “tentacles” of Western propaganda and its ” a sting of addiction is stuck deep’ in their brains.
The phrase is also mentioned
“He who frees us shall enslave us”
– presented by the former president of the country (a dozen years ago) as Levski’s thought and proved to be false. Levski did not utter such words. The then president Plevneliev took this phrase from the theater play “The Last Supper of Deacon Levski” by Stefan Tsanev. Here is what the author himself reveals afterwards. ““He who frees us will enslave us” is a line from my play. I transferred it from “The Last Supper” to “Bulgarian Chronicles” – as a fictional phrase, not as a quote. From there it probably reached the president, for which he was harshly reprimanded, that he attributes it to Levski. I’m sorry. The historians are right: there is no document where Levski’s thought is recorded word for word.” And when I asked the newly created intelligent “chat” about Bulgaria BgGPT who is the author of the quote in question, this is what he replied to me: “The phrase “He who frees us shall enslave us” is often attributed to King Louis XVI of France during the French Revolution. He is said to have uttered this phrase after being forced to escape from the Temple, a prison in Paris where he was being held under house arrest by the revolutionaries. However, it is important to note that the accuracy of this quote is debatable. Some historians believe that Louis XVI never uttered these exact words, while others argue that he may have said them on a different occasion.” I leave it to the reader to judge who is the author of the phrase in question – the Deacon, King Louis XVI, the novelist Stefan Tsanev or Rosen Plevneliev. It is strange that “Radio Liberty” publishes proven false facts about historical ones.
In this spirit is also the statement about the “responsibility” of the Russian diplomat Count Ignatiev “in the hanging of the outstanding fighter for the national independence of Bulgaria, Vasil Levski”. This manipulation has been circulating in our mass media for some time, but it is part of a trend to replace historical facts. As well as the destruction of monuments testifying to Russia’s involvement in our native history.
Regarding the fact that “unknown people threw the bust of Count Nikolay Ignatiev from the pedestal in Varna” (pronounced as an expression of anti-Russian sentiments in our country), I will say that there are vandals everywhere, including in the Western democracies. A few years ago, when the global “Black Lives Matter” movement broke out, monuments to the Belgian King Leopold II were also torn down from their pedestals in Western Europe and Africa. And not only them – the statues of Christopher Columbus in Baltimore (Maryland, USA), Edward Colston in Bristol (England), General Robert E. Lee in Richmond (Virginia, USA) and etc.
On the experience of
„the ruling coalition to constitutionally change the date of the main national holiday on March 3 in the name of strengthening the unity of the nation and move it to May 24″
I will answer with the thought of the American banker (and Freemason) J.P. Morgan: “A person has two reasons for his actions – the real one and the one that sounds good!“. What the rulers declare just sounds “good” (according to them), and the real reason is to show zeal to their Western (Anglo-Saxon) patrons. In addition, May 24 has long been a national holiday of the country – the idea here is to erase from history everything related to Russia’s influence in Bulgaria. As our Secretary of War vowed to do during his recent visit to the US.
And the intention of the newly hatched mayor of Sofia Terziev “to name one of the streets in Sofia in honor of Alexei Navalny” is in the same range of servility and servitude to the Euro-Atlantic mentors.
The following are thoughts of our anti-Russian intellectuals. For example, the accusations against the President of the Republic by a certain Dimitar Popov (publicist): “the political personality Radev is a person… fanatically devoted to the idea of ruling Bulgaria from the Kremlin”. Nothing of the sort – the President’s attitude towards Russia’s policy is more contradictory than “fanatically committed” (once he states that “the seizure of Crimea is a violation of international law”, another time – that “Crimea is Russian”).
Georgi Lozanov’s interview with “Deutsche Welle”, where he presents, is in the same spirit
The President as a “trustee of Russia”.
I will remind you that Rumen Radev is a NATO general, and Lozanov himself has proven to be an opponent of dissent – a few years ago, in his role as chairman of the Council for Electronic Media, he banned the popular and widely listened to radio program “Deconstruction” of the famous journalist Petar Volgin. because the latter declared Russophile views in his radio broadcasts. And the monument to the Soviet Army was not “dismantled”, but brazenly cut in broad daylight without a court decision – later the court ordered a halt to the actions, but the destruction of the monument was already carried out by our native Taliban. And to Lozanov’s irony that the non-resistance of the citizens against the vandalism of the town hall is “a bad job of the Bulgarian comrades” (understand the Russophile groups in Bulgaria), it can be answered like this – it is, however, an excellent job of the Anglo-Saxon agents for influence in our country .
The claim of a certain professor Nikolay Slatinsky that “Ukraine for Bulgaria is a memory for the future” is simply a cheap Western propaganda manipulation. Such is the warning of our defense and national security expert (Mikhail Naydenov) that Moscow is using
„hybrid influence’
(a very modern term, but few can clearly define what it means and how it differs from our well-known propaganda war?) to “cause political instability in the country to advance their interests”. So what about American propaganda, isn’t it “hybrid”? Or is the USA worried about how to ensure political “stability” in Bulgaria? Do they not look after their own interests? It would be naive to think so.
The article also talks about self-censorship of the institutions publishing our history textbooks (favoring the role of Russia). However, the truth is that today self-censorship is mainly manifested when criticizing Western European democracies and their policies or (God forbid!) the supreme hegemon across the Ocean. I myself am a victim of this, because my writings – contrary to the officially accepted government (pro-American) attitude towards Russia and the actions of the NATO allies – do not pass through the (auto)censorship of Euro-Atlanticism.
The policy of “Putin’s Russia” (the author’s expression) is not related to the Russo-Turkish war and the subsequent events, which took place a century and a half ago by another Russia, under different historical, economic and socio-political circumstances. That’s like blaming the US for annexing the northern Mexican territories in the middle of the last century, which are now the states of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming. Euro-Atlanticians, has such a sacrilegious thought crossed your mind?
On the other hand, it is clear enough what Bulgaria (as well as Romania and Poland) means to American strategists in organizing a European front against Russia. Well, recently David Cameron – the current foreign minister of Great Britain – boasted during his visit to our country how much damage was done to Russia in its war with Ukraine
„without a single one killed natoevery soldier!
All the cynicism of the West shines through in this statement. As one Swedish woman said in a street interview about citizens’ views on Sweden joining NATO: “Sweden doesn’t need NATO to protect it, but NATO needs Sweden to fight!”.
In general, a weak article (argument) by “Radio Liberty” – every paragraph in it can be refuted. I thought there were smarter people working in the west, not cheap propagandists…
2024-03-10 17:23:12
#Day #Disunity #March #objection #absentia #Radio #Liberty
