Abstract:The Eastern Question had numerous regional aspects. Conflicts and crises on the southeastern periphery of the Ottoman Empire, which was already facing numerous internal problems and external pressures, were not particularly novel during the 19th century. These issues were usually resolved without endangering peace in Europe. Offensive realism views great powers as the most significant actors in the international system. The political geography of the Balkans was largely reshaped by their interests, regardless of their inadequate understanding of the complex situations and peoples in that volatile region, defined by the “architecture of roads and inns.” The Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878), a dramatic stage in the prolonged resolution of the Eastern Question, began with the Serbian uprising in July 1875 in the Bosnia Eyalet. It continued with the Bulgarian uprising in April 1876 and the war between Serbia and Montenegro against the Ottoman Empire in July of the same year, initiated in support of Orthodox Christians in the Bosnian pashaluk, but “in truth to expand their territory and consolidate their still insecure independence.” European public opinion during the escalation of the crisis, when the Ottoman side had military superiority, was being prepared for harsh interventions against the Ottoman Empire. This sentiment was particularly pronounced in Russia. Russia did not reconcile with the provisions of the Treaty of Paris in 1856 and the previous failure in the Crimean War (1853-1856), which was a struggle for access to the straits - the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. It sought ways to free itself from the imposed provisions of that treaty. The entire “Russian 19th century” passed under the sign of the Slavophile dream of Constantinople - “which sooner or later must be ours,” as well as the “southern, warm seas.” Every Russian war with the Ottoman Empire in that century activated, on the Russian side, the armed participation of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans. Russia supported their movements, involving them in a “historical clash” with the Ottoman state. Pan-Slavism also served as a justification for Russian military-political interventions. Essentially, it represented the ideology of Great Russian imperialism. For the great powers, the key motive was interest, not imaginative “historical connections” and “brotherly emotions.” Benjamin von Kállay wrote that the “struggle of Russia against Turkey” was one of the “most interesting, most important facts of world history.” Religious motives were present in all Russo-Ottoman wars. These conflicts had, to a greater or lesser extent, political consequences in the Balkans. All peoples have separate stories and different dates in their memory. After the war of 1812, the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878, an integral part of the Great Eastern Crisis and a continuation of the Crimean War, was the only foreign policy event that had a significant impact on all layers of Russian society. It became one of the “most ideologized” in Russian history, as the causes, course, and consequences of the war were directly related to public opinion. Numerous Slavophile associations constantly urged the tsar to liberate Christians in the Balkans from the “Turkish yoke.” According to numerous accounts, the war with the Ottoman Empire was invoked to a considerable extent by the press. It fueled the “Pan-Slavic fire” in Moscow and St. Petersburg, which forced the Russian government in 1877 to undertake diplomatic actions, following the Ottoman suppression of the Bulgarian uprising in 1876 and alarming reports of their mass suffering, while neglecting the significant Muslim losses on the other side, to start a war with that empire for which it already had plans and goals prepared. Russian intervention, amidst propaganda and the “Bulgarian horrors,” was expected, considering the broader ambitions of this imperial state.

On the Historical Significance of the Baltic War in 1854

The Topical Past: Instrumentalization of the Historical Memory of 1812 during the Crimean War of 1853–1856

Lessons of History: Appealing to the Experience of the Crimean War on the Pages of the Military Press during the Revolutionary Crisis of 1905–1907

Medical Services of Russia, France, and Britain in the Crimean War, 1853–1856

Crimean War and the Development of the British Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century

Foundations of classical geopolitics: evolution of the German school

June 22, 1941 in the historical files of foreign historiography

The significance of the Russo-Japanese War in the fate of Japan and Asia in the XX century

B.N. Chicherin: The Crimean War as a Reflection of the Crisis of the Russian Empire

Uzroci rusko-osmanskog rata (1877-1878)

The Eastern Policy of France in the Second Half of the 17th — Second Half of the 18th Century

A War of Others: British War Correspondents, Orientalist Discourse, and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905

Russia's sanctions policy in the context of the First World War

“With the Tatar Barbarism of Batu:” References to History in Russian Works Concerning Napoleon’s Campaign, 1812–1814

How to End a War: Some Historical Lessons for Ukraine

The Varangian Issue through the Prism of the Social Contract Concept

The Russia-Ukraine war. Causes of emergence

Impact of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict on the International Situation in Russia

Impact of Regional Reactions to War on Contemporary Chinese Trade

War, Economy and Utopianism: Russia after the Napoleonic Era

Some features of censorship policy during the Crimean War of 1853–1856