"Brothers Slavs" and other traitors: how Bulgarians sabotage Russian energy projects

August 26 2020 24

Recently, in the light of the extremely aggravated contradictions between Ankara and Athens, some of the domestic "smart people" allow themselves to be indignant about Moscow's non-intervention in this conflict. On the side of the Greek "brothers in faith", of course ... Like, how is it - the Turks even allow Saint Sophia to turn into a mosque for themselves, the Greeks are indignant to the whole world, and we - no gu-gu! Anyway, Erdogan is going to extract gas and oil in the Mediterranean - to the detriment of the poor Greeks, again. Where is the eternal readiness of Russia to come to the aid of the most varied "brothers" from the Balkans, to protect them with their breasts from the infamous adversaries ?!

Before embarking on such arguments, it is worth considering in more detail - how these same "brothers" in some way relate to our country, how they act in very specific situations and in whom they see real, not declared friends, allies and patrons.

Friendship is friendship, and gas is apart

It was not by chance that I used the word "little brothers", which arouses my persistent hostility. We will begin our conversation about real affairs and more than dubious maneuvers of Russia's Balkan "partners" with Bulgaria. As it became known, the local state gas operator Bultransgaz made a purchase, which is called the "deal of the century" in the country. The matter concerns the acquisition by the Bulgarian side of a 20% stake in the Greek company Gastrade. It doesn't sound very impressive, but this is only at first glance. In fact, by concluding this agreement, Sofia entered the project to create a liquefied natural gas terminal in the city of Alexandroupolis - another gateway for the victorious penetration of American LNG into the Old World.

Ever aching and crying about her own poverty and squalor (you just have to talk about the completion of the Bulgarian branch of the Turkish Stream) Sofia got into the construction, the estimate of which, according to the most approximate calculations, is at least 370 million euros, in theory, "hanging" on itself exactly one-fifth of the costs - in order to then claim 20% of energy supplies. And the planned volumes are by no means small - according to the declared parameters, the terminal will have to have a capacity of 6.1 billion cubic meters per year. Generally speaking, the Alexandroupolis terminal is a key link in an alternative route for the supply of "blue fuel" to Southeast Europe via the Greece-Bulgaria interconnector pipeline (IGB). Alternative, of course, in relation to any projects of our "Gazprom". What, by and large, is the difference - will there be a flow of LNG from the United States or "ordinary" gas from Azerbaijan through the Trans-Adriatic gas pipeline? One way or another, but a blow is being dealt to our energy supplies.

The signed agreement is so important for the "diversification of supplies for the whole of Central Europe" that the Prime Ministers of both Bulgaria and Greece personally attended the signing. It was Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who represented Athens at this event, who expressed great joy that from now on, fellow Europeans "will no longer be dependent on a single source of energy." It is clear from which one ... Both countries, which is characteristic, are a classic example of our Balkan "partners". Both love, when it suits them, to remind that Russians are their fellow believers, Orthodox Christians and, in general, are almost their best friends. At the same time, both Greece and Bulgaria have long been "looking into the mouth" of Washington and with great readiness carry out any commands emanating from there, acting not just against Russia's interests, but to the detriment of it. And there is nothing surprising here - did not all the same Boyko Borisov, who profoundly broadcast after each of his own meanness about "an older Russian brother who will forgive everything," did not swear eternal loyalty to Donald Trump in Washington last November?

During this meeting, the kissing of the shoes of the head of the White House by the Bulgarian prime minister was so earnest that Washington even issued a communiqué following the meeting, which spoke of "friendship and alliance between the two great powers - the United States and Bulgaria." Great power ... You can die laughing! However, in the United States, they do not consider it shameful to shamelessly flatter the natives - if they diligently follow all the valuable instructions they receive. One of those was the demand to "diversify energy supplies." Sophia briskly “picked up” - and now we have the results.

"Brothers Slavs" and other traitors

Washington has every reason to be pleased with the Bulgarian diligence. Sofia transferred the money for the purchase of eight American F-16 Block 70 fighters to the US Defense Cooperation and Security Agency more than a year ago - but not an advance, but the entire fabulous (for Bulgaria, whose parliament members were fundamentally opposed to this deal) amount of $ 1.2 billion immediately! Last month, a large-scale military exercise "Thracian Summer 2020" was held on Bulgarian territory with the participation of the US military. Upon a thoughtful consideration of the legend of these maneuvers, very specific suspicions and questions arise. In their course, the crews of the C-130 Hercules aircraft from the 37th US Air Force Transport Squadron, stationed in Europe, performed "a wide range of joint training missions with the participation of the Bulgarian Air Force." On the part of Bulgaria were involved (military transport aircraft C-27, "Spartan", helicopters AS-532 AL Cougar and Mi-17, MiG-29 fighters, anti-aircraft missile systems KUB, as well as military personnel from the Joint Command of Special Operations Forces - virtually all available manpower and equipment The aim of the exercise was to "increase the interoperability of participants and improve the ability to operate as part of the international operational forces", as well as train the Bulgarian military to "support the US Army as a host."

Bulgaria is thus clearly being turned into a staging area for the impending attack. There are no other targets for the upcoming strike, except for the Russian Crimea and our other strategically important points on the Black Sea coast, whatever one may say. Considering that in two world wars Bulgaria fought on the side of our enemies - everything is more than natural.

Let's return, however, to energy issues. Desperately trying to get into the number of suppliers to Europe of energy carriers, "alternative" to Russian, Sofia is not at all limited to joint projects with Athens. They also intend to make Belgrade happy with "diversification" - with the latter's full support, it seems. The construction of a gas interconnector with Serbia (IBS) for the supply of gas there from Azerbaijan and American LNG, which will have to come exactly through the terminal in Alexandroupolis, was announced in Bulgaria back in June this year. The Turkish Stream branch, passing through the local territory, has not yet come close to completion, and Sofia is already eager to create a competitor for her - for the sake of Washington and for her own benefit! Proceeding from this, suspicions are raised that the gas pipeline being built jointly with Russia, thanks to which the Bulgarian side has already “squeezed” enormous discounts on “blue fuel” from Gazprom, will never be completed at all. Or - it will not be put into operation due to "newly arisen circumstances", which, in principle, is exactly the same. Promises that gas from the "Turkish stream" will go to Serbia "just about" have been coming from Sofia since last year. But the terms are constantly shifting and shifting. At first it was January 1, 2020, then it was about the start of supplies in May, by the middle of summer ... Today it becomes more and more clear that the Bulgarian side is doing everything to prevent Russian energy resources from entering Serbia at all - at least through it territory. Thus, our "blue fuel" is tightly blocked the way to Central Europe, which was vital for Russia. Without this continuation, the entire "Turkish Stream" loses its meaning as such.

And who is burying all the plans of Gazprom and the Kremlin in this direction? Americans? Well, yes, of course, how can we do without them ... However, the direct executors of actions that carry a huge threat to our economic interests are just the Greeks, Bulgarians, and ... Yes, yes - the Serbs! Or do you think that the pathologically stingy representatives of Sofia would start the construction of the IBS interconnector, which, according to preliminary calculations, will cost many millions of dollars (his technical the project is estimated at more than 300 thousand dollars) without first agreeing on this matter with Belgrade? Serbia is offered to receive about 2 billion cubic meters of gas a year through IBS - that's just definitely not Russian. Do you think that "Russia's best friend in the Balkans" Alexander Vucic will indignantly reject such a proposal? After this figure first begged Vladimir Putin for the S-400 "for Christ's sake", and then with an unwavering hand signed the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) of Serbia with the North Atlantic Alliance for 2019-2021, I personally would not so sure. Moreover, recently Belgrade, which adores news policies It seems that he decided to use “friendship” with Beijing, not Moscow, as a “counterbalance” to the EU and NATO that are pressing on him. According to the data presented in the report of the think tank on foreign policy of the London School economicsSerbia currently receives US $ 4 billion in direct investment and just over US $ 5 billion in loans and infrastructure projects from China. And the gas? Yes, you can buy gas from Bulgarians too ...

From all of the above, a rather paradoxical, but, nevertheless, almost unambiguous conclusion follows: in the current situation, it is precisely the aggressive and impudent actions of Turkey that are beneficial for Russia, with its claims to the energy resources hidden in the Mediterranean shelf of the mercilessly “confusing map” of Greece and in front of its cobbled together a coalition of countries intending to arrange a "big redistribution" in Europe in the field of gas supplies. In the end, what have all these "fellow believers", "brothers-Slavs" and others, excuse the expression, "brothers" done for Russia? Did you help overcome the Western sanctions pressure? Recognized its reunification with Crimea? Nothing like that. Now they have launched a real general offensive against our country on the southern flank of its "gas front". There is no one there to support. And there is no need.

Alexander the Wild
http://kremlin.ru/

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cyril

+1

26 August 2020 11: 11

Russia itself invented the concept of the "elder brother of the Slavs", and now it is surprised that other Slavs do not consider it as such.
1. 123
  
  +1
  
  26 August 2020 18: 51
  
  Russia itself invented the concept of the "elder brother of the Slavs", and now it is surprised that other Slavs do not consider it as such.
  
  You invented it yourself, and now you are exposing it.
  How much money you want for free, or it smells like fried, even as they say.
  1. Cyril
    
    0
    
    26 August 2020 19: 11
    
    You made it up yourself, and now you expose
    
    Google the history of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, this concept finally took shape just then. And I was not there then.
    
    How much money you want for free, or it smells like fried, even as they say
    
    They do not consider, but use this pretext, spreading Russia into nishtyaks.
    1. 123
      
      +1
      
      26 August 2020 19: 36
      
      Google the history of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, this concept finally took shape just then. And I was not there then.
      
      Maybe it took its final shape there, but it did not originate in Russia. And you start telling fairy tales that the Russians themselves invented, and now you are offended that they are not appreciated. Shame on you? However, the psychology of hivi .... that explains a lot. By the way, we are talking about Slavic unity, and not about the elder brother.
      
      PANSLAVISM, ideological trend and socio-political. movement in Russia and other Slavic countries in the 19th century, based on the idea of historical. the unity of the Slavic peoples, expressed in the kinship of languages, ancient literature and the presence of common features in history. Arose in the beginning. 19th century in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which were part of Austr. empire, as one of the manifestations of the Slavic revival, on the one hand, and as a response to the West. Slavs to strengthen the positions of Pan-Germanism - on the other.
      
      https://bigenc.ru/domestic_history/text/2702844
      
      They do not consider, but use this pretext, spreading Russia into nishtyaks.
      
      In any case, publicly voiced by the head of state. You cannot know what he really thinks, and this is your speculation. By the way, it does not seem that the head of the Russian state was close to such ideas.
      1. Cyril
        
        0
        
        27 August 2020 01: 21
        
        Maybe it took its final shape there, but it did not originate in Russia. And you start telling fairy tales that the Russians themselves invented, and now you are offended that they are not appreciated. Shame on you? negative However, the psychology of hivi .... that explains a lot. By the way, we are talking about Slavic unity, and not about the elder brother.
        
        Pan-Slavism originated in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that's right. But initially the idea assumed the formation of a single Slavic confederation without the dominant role of Russia. But the concept of "older brother" was developed in the same 19th century by Russian Slavophiles. Moreover, in the European Slavic countries, Pan-Slavism was prevalent in the overwhelming majority among the intelligentsia. Their rare pan-Slavic politicians were supporters of local integration of the Slavs - for example, the Balkan countries or the Czech Republic with Slovakia. But not with Russia. But in the Russian Empire great-power Pan-Slavism, led by Russia, was adopted by the highest ruling circles - in particular, generals Skobelev, Chernyaev, Fadeev, Prince Vladimir Cherkassky, in a more moderate form - even Emperor Alexander II himself. And this perfectly fell on the geopolitical aspirations of the Republic of Ingushetia to control the countries of the Balkan Peninsula and Eastern Europe. That's why I say - google the history of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78.
        
        In any case, publicly voiced by the head of state. What he really thinks, you cannot know, and this is your speculation.
        
        These "speculations" are easily confirmed by the specific deeds of these very politicians, which run counter to their words.
        
        By the way, it does not seem that the head of the Russian state was close to such ideas.
        
        If you are talking about GDP, then yes, in this regard it is more pragmatic than many of its predecessors.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        27 August 2020 11: 07
        
        Pan-Slavism originated in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, that's right. But initially the idea assumed the formation of a single Slavic confederation without the dominant role of Russia.
        
        It is quite logical in Orthodox traditions as well. Unlike Catholics, patriarchs are equal.
        
        But the concept of "older brother" was developed in the same 19th century by Russian Slavophiles.
        
        The "Slavophiles" advocated an original path of development for Russia, in contrast to the "Westernizers". The spiritual basis of identity was Orthodoxy, the dominant role of Russia contradicts this. "Slavophiles" and "elder brother" are hardly compatible concepts.
        
        Moreover, in the European Slavic countries, Pan-Slavism was prevalent in the overwhelming majority among the intelligentsia. Their rare Pan-Slavic politicians were supporters of local integration of the Slavs - for example, the Balkan countries or the Czech Republic with Slovakia. But not with Russia. But in the Russian Empire, great-power Pan-Slavism, led by Russia, was adopted by the highest ruling circles - in particular, Generals Skobelev, Chernyaev, Fadeev, Prince Vladimir Cherkassky, in a more moderate form - even Emperor Alexander II himself.
        
        It is quite logical, the Czechs and the Slovaks lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it was not so easy for them to break into the "ruling circles". But again, Pan-Slavism and "big brother" are practically incompatible concepts.
        
        And this perfectly fell on the geopolitical aspirations of the Republic of Ingushetia to control the countries of the Balkan Peninsula and Eastern Europe. That's why I say - google the history of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78.
        
        Apparently, such nonsense is the result of much later "research". I recommend browsing at your leisure: "The Myth of Pan-Slavism in Western Historiography of the Cold War"
        
        https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mif-o-panslavizme-v-zapadnoy-istoriografii-perioda-holodnoy-voyny/viewer
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        27 August 2020 13: 03
        
        It is quite logical in Orthodox traditions as well. Unlike Catholics, patriarchs are equal.
        
        But the Czechs and Slovaks are Catholics :) By the way, Catholic priests played an important role in Czech, Slovak, Croatian Pan-Slavism.
        
        The "Slavophiles" advocated an original path of development for Russia, in contrast to the "Westernizers". The spiritual basis of identity was Orthodoxy, the dominant role of Russia contradicts this. "Slavophiles" and "elder brother" are hardly compatible concepts.
        
        But no. From Wikipedia:
        
        In Slavophil ideology, he occupied an important place the thesis about the leading role of Russia among the Slavs, about its unifying mission. Projects for the political unification of the Slavs under the auspices of the Russian Empire were developed back in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries by Andrei Samborsky, Vasily Malinovsky and others. The Slavophiles were supporters of the liberation of the Slavs from Ottoman and Austrian rule and the creation of a Slavic federation.
        
        Russian Slavophiles in the 1840s-1850s - Konstantin Aksakov, Alexei Khomyakov, Ivan Kireevsky and others - came up with the idea of opposing the Slavic Orthodox world with Russia at the head of a "sick", unfaithful Europe.
        
        The last paragraph is very important for understanding why the ideas of Pan-Slavism remained ideas and were not implemented in practice. While the Russian Pan-Slavists emphasized the leading role of Orthodoxy, the Czechs, Poles and Croats were Catholics. It was the difference in religion that was one of the stumbling blocks, because of which the Orthodox Pan-Slavists did not find a common language with the Ponoslav Catholics and Protestants.
        
        It is quite logical, the Czechs and the Slovaks lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it was not so easy for them to break into the "ruling circles".
        
        Not certainly in that way. Among the Czechs and Slovaks in the Austro-Hungarian Empire there were quite a few high-ranking officials who had, albeit not decisive, but quite weighty political weight. They were simply not interested in uniting the Slavs under the auspices of Russia - on the contrary, they were supporters of the unification of the Slavs under the Habsburgs. This movement is called Austro-Slavism.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        27 August 2020 13: 48
        
        But the Czechs and Slovaks are Catholics :) By the way, Catholic priests played an important role in Czech, Slovak, Croatian Pan-Slavism.
        
        This is another confirmation that the concept did not originate in Russia. The supremacy of Russia was not even considered for various reasons, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia due to religious differences, in Russia due to the Orthodox tradition of equality. What kind of leading role can we talk about?
        
        But no. From Wikipedia:
        
        As far as I understand, the question has disappeared with Pan-Slavism? Are you talking about the Slavophiles?
        By the way, the quote you have given is not complete, which somewhat distorts the meaning and makes it difficult to understand what was said. This is what the entire paragraph looks like:
        
        In Russia itself at the end of the 1830s, the works of Mikhail Pogodin included theses put forward on approval features of the Slavic world and the higher spiritual values и true faith - Orthodoxy... In Slavophil ideology an important place was occupied by the thesis about the leading role of Russia among the Slavs, about its unifying mission... Projects for the political unification of the Slavs under the auspices of the Russian Empire were developed back in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries by Andrei Samborsky, Vasily Malinovsky and others. Slavophiles were supporters liberation of the Slavs from Ottoman and Austrian rule и creation of a Slavic federation.
        
        http://wp.wiki-wiki.ru
        
        The unification of Russians and Czechs on the basis of the Orthodox religion looks rather strange. It is not clear on what basis this conclusion was made; there is no link to the source in the article. It is very similar to the unfounded statement and broadcast of the opinion of those very "American scientists" who worked during the Cold War (you, of course, did not bother to go in and read through the link above? Is it easier to draw wisdom from Wiki?)
        
        https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mif-o-panslavizme-v-zapadnoy-istoriografii-perioda-holodnoy-voyny/viewer
        
        Well, okay ... Even in the article you are referring to, it is about the unification of the Slavic peoples in Yugoslavia and further plans for Bulgaria to join it. There is no talk of any annexation to Russia. Moreover, everywhere we are talking about the federation, and as you know, these are:
        
        A state consisting of separate independent states united into a single state whole.
        
        That is, there is no talk at all about the subordination of Russia. All the "leading role" is reduced to help in the liberation and creation of their own states.
        
        The last paragraph is very important for understanding why the ideas of Pan-Slavism remained ideas and were not implemented in practice. While the Russian Pan-Slavists emphasized the leading role of Orthodoxy, the Czechs, Poles and Croats were Catholics. It was the difference in religion that was one of the stumbling blocks, because of which the Orthodox Pan-Slavists did not find a common language with the Catholic and Protestant Pan-Slavists.
        
        Why weren't they? The ideas were not in vain and were partially implemented in practice. Yugoslavia existed for itself until the "Westerners" intervened in 1999. And Czechoslovakia is quite a real state, again before falling under the influence of the West.
        
        Not certainly in that way. Among the Czechs and Slovaks in the Austro-Hungarian Empire there were quite a few high-ranking officials who had, albeit not decisive, but quite weighty political weight. They were simply not interested in uniting the Slavs under the auspices of Russia - on the contrary, they were supporters of the unification of the Slavs under the Habsburgs. This movement is called Austro-Slavism.
        
        It turns out that Austria itself invented the "concept of the" elder brother of the Slavs ", and now it is surprising that other Slavs do not consider it as such"?
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        27 August 2020 13: 53
        
        I'll answer a little later, I'll just figure it out with the work. And I read the article on your link - however, apart from accusing the criticized authors of "Russophobia" there is nothing particularly meaningful there. But, again, I will answer later.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        27 August 2020 21: 28
        
        Well, let's order.
        
        This is another confirmation that the concept did not originate in Russia.
        
        Pan-Slavism itself - yes, not in Russia. In Russia, Pan-Slavism took shape (and at the level of the ruling circles) with the leading role of Russia among the Slavic peoples.
        
        The supremacy of Russia was not even considered for various reasons, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia due to religious differences
        
        But no. Some of the Pan-Slavists (though insignificant and purely from the intelligentsia class) from the Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovakia considered the unification of Slavic peoples, including their own, around Russia. This part of the Pan-Slavists proposed to solve the problem of different religions in two ways - either by the Orthodox-Catholic union, or by the equality of religions and free religion.
        
        in Russia due to the Orthodox tradition of equality
        
        There is no such tradition. Where did you get it? The fact that the Orthodox Church is not formally a single organization like the Catholic Church does not negate the fact that some national Orthodox churches are "more important than others." The ROC was even more authoritative than the Constantinople Church (and it still is).
        
        Moreover, this argument of yours - how, with the "Orthodox tradition of equality" and the confrontation of religions, one can create a state centered in Russia, is refuted by the example of the Russian Empire itself, which included countries and peoples with Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and even pagan faith. Someone entered voluntarily, someone was conquered.
        
        What kind of leading role can we talk about?
        
        About the most ordinary leading role. Supremacy does not necessarily imply the creation of a single state, a single religion, or even a single language around a center. Over the past 70 years, the United States has been the obvious head (and thus the "elder brother") of the Western world, despite the fact that other Western countries have state sovereignty, differ in religion, language, etc.
        
        As far as I understand, the question has disappeared with Pan-Slavism? Are you talking about the Slavophiles?
        
        Why did it disappear? It's just that the key Russian Slavophiles were also Pan-Slavists. These two concepts do not contradict each other.
        
        By the way, the quote you have given is not complete, which somewhat distorts the meaning and makes it difficult to understand what was said. This is what the entire paragraph looks like:
        
        And this paragraph you quoted and the fragments highlighted in no way contradict and do not change the fact that the Slavophiles saw in Russia the uniting (that is, the dominant) center of the hypothetical all-Slavic state. The difference in the approaches of the Slavophils to this issue was only in the fact that some of them advocated a freer union with the self-preservation of national and religious identity with the "moral" domination of Russia, and some - for example, Aksakov - for the cultural assimilation of the Slavs by the Russians and the creation of a single state with political center in Russia.
        
        You can read more here:
        
        https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/transformatsiya-slavyanofilstva-v-panslavizm-kak-smena-kontseptsii-russkogo-natsionalizma/viewer
        
        The unification of Russians and Czechs on the basis of the Orthodox religion looks rather strange.
        
        The Russian Pan-Slavists proposed to solve this problem in three ways. The first is the mutual respect of religions while preserving Orthodoxy as the dominant religion (from the logic that the majority of Slavs are Orthodox). The second is the union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The third (the same Aksakov was a supporter of this path) - the eradication of Catholicism among the Slavs and the replacement of Orthodoxy.
        
        So, there is nothing strange in this paragraph.
        
        Well, okay ... Even in the article you are referring to, it is about the unification of the Slavic peoples in Yugoslavia and further plans for Bulgaria to join it. There is no talk of any annexation to Russia. Moreover, everywhere we are talking about the federation, and as you know, these are:
        
        The article I am referring to talks about Pan-Slavism in different countries. Naturally, the Pan-Slavists of the Balkan and Eastern European countries did not want to be part of the Russian Empire. But the Pan-Slavists of Ingushetia for the most part advocated the integration of "small Slavic peoples" into Ingushetia under the leadership of Russia.
        
        Moreover, everywhere we are talking about the federation, and as you know, these are:
        
        The definition you have given is inaccurate. The term "federation" does not necessarily imply full equality of its constituent entities - it is only one type of federation (confederation or decentralized federation). An example of such entities is Switzerland, the European Union. And there is also a centralized federation, in which the subjects have a certain degree of autonomy, but are subject to a single center. Examples are the Russian Federation, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of America and the vast majority of the federal countries of the world.
        
        So the Russian Slavophiles-Pan-Slavists spoke of an all-Slavic federation with a federal center in Russia, there is no internal contradiction here.
        
        That is, there is no talk at all about the subordination of Russia. All the "leading role" is reduced to help in the liberation and creation of their own states.
        
        The Russian Slavophiles-Pan-Slavists spoke about the "moral" (that is, cultural and religious) and political domination of Russia, as the largest Slavic country in terms of numbers and political influence.
        
        This domination should not necessarily be expressed in the legal entry of "small Slavic states" into Russia. I have already cited above the example of the United States as the "elder brother" of all Western countries, determining their foreign policy, to some extent ideology, and economic system. Although formally they are sovereign states.
        
        Why weren't they? The ideas were not in vain and were partially implemented in practice. Yugoslavia existed for itself until the "Westerners" intervened in 1999. And Czechoslovakia is quite a real state, again before falling under the influence of the West.
        
        The FRY existed for less than half a century and collapsed due to internal interethnic contradictions that existed during its existence, but were compensated by the military and political domination of the Serbs. How the Balkan peoples "peacefully coexisted" with each other can be judged at least by the massacre between Serbs and Croats during the Second World War.
        
        The single state of Czechs and Slovaks (Czechoslovakia) was also formed only in 1919 and existed for only 70 years. There was no long-term historical unity between these peoples.
        
        So the reason for the collapse of both the SFRY and Czechoslovakia was not "the machinations of the vile West", but the long-term interethnic contradictions of the peoples that make up them.
        
        It turns out that Austria itself invented the "concept of the" elder brother of the Slavs ", and now he is surprised that other Slavs do not consider it as such?
        
        Austria (more precisely, the government of Austria-Hungary "never took on the role of the" elder brother of the Slavs. "Where did you get this?
2. Marciz
  
  0
  
  31 December 2020 08: 23
  
  And she left from everywhere !!!
gorenina91

-3

26 August 2020 12: 19

The matter concerns the acquisition by the Bulgarian side of a 20% stake in the Greek company Gastrade.
Sofia joined the project to build a liquefied natural gas terminal in the city of Alexandroupolis - another gateway for the victorious penetration of American LNG into the Old World.
Sofia got into the construction, the estimate of which, according to the most approximate calculations, is at least 370 million euros, in theory, "hanging" on itself exactly a fifth of the costs - in order to then claim 20% of the energy supplies. And the planned volumes are by no means small - according to the declared parameters, the terminal will have to have a capacity of 6.1 billion cubic meters per year.
Generally speaking, the Alexandroupolis terminal is a key link in an alternative route for the supply of "blue fuel" to Southeast Europe via the Greece-Bulgaria interconnector pipeline (IGB). An alternative, of course, in relation to any projects of our Gazprom. What, by and large, is the difference - will there be a flow of LNG from the United States or "ordinary" gas from Azerbaijan through the Trans-Adriatic gas pipeline? One way or another, but a blow is being dealt to our energy supplies.

- Ha .. - Well, who prevented Russia (Gazprom) from acquiring this "20% stake in the Greek company Gastrade" ??? - Russia has that ... - there was no 370 million euros for this ??? - Poor Bulgaria found, but Russia does not ... - In any case, Russia got into such space spending with Turkey that they are unlikely to ever pay off ... And then "some 370 million" ... - and as much as "20% shares" ...
1. Andrey Goncharov
  
  0
  
  26 August 2020 12: 58
  
  So they would be allowed ...
  1. gorenina91
    
    -4
    
    26 August 2020 13: 50
    
    So they would be allowed ...
    
    - Ha ... - So for this there is "commercial cunning", all kinds of front companies (third, fourth); who buy, then resell there ... - "where necessary" ... etc ...
    - And all kinds of bribery and bribes ... - And money ... - "They don't smell" ...
  2. Vladimir Tuzakov
    
    +1
    
    26 August 2020 15: 48
    
    The interests of other countries must also be understood. Knowing the greed and thoughtlessness of the long-term actions of greedy Gazprom managers - now it is more expensive, then even a flood .. So everyone was turned against such a greedy and brainless (even the latest actions with OPEC +) monopoly of Gazprom ... They beat Gazprom on all "fronts". .. Of course, today's "force majeure" will pass, the profits will go again, but why during the losses to the managers of STATE Gazprom, the remuneration and bonuses DOUBLE !!!
2. KNF
  
  0
  
  30 August 2020 20: 13
  
  Absolutely correct.
margo

0

26 August 2020 16: 16

"Brothers Slavs" and other traitors - my question is: does Russia have allies in general? - not. There are countries that depend on Russia, one can judge at least by the support for Crimea:
- recognized - Armenia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria. Representatives of these countries announced the recognition of the results of the referendum in Crimea held in the spring of 2014, and then supported Russia at the UN during the vote on the “Crimean” resolution. In addition to them, perhaps (although this is not confirmed), seven other countries adhere to some similar positions: Afghanistan, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Those. in the list are all countries that receive fin. help is not allies!
1. 123
  
  -3
  
  26 August 2020 20: 15
  
  “Brothers-Slavs” and other traitors ”- I have a question. Does Russia have allies at all? - No. There are countries that depend on Russia, you can judge at least by the support for Crimea:
  - recognized - Armenia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria.
  
  Truth is learned by comparison. A recent vote was to extend the ban on arms sales to Iran. The US resolution was supported by ....... the Dominican Republic and ..... the United States itself. The others giggled as China and Russia mocked the United States.
  Crimea and Russia do not care who has recognized what.
2. KNF
  
  0
  
  30 August 2020 20: 15
  
  Did the Turks recognize Crimea?
Yuri 17

0

26 August 2020 20: 25

Bulgarians are bad Turks.
Dear sofa expert.

0

26 August 2020 23: 46

Bulgarians have never been Slavs.
M.Mikhail

+1

29 August 2020 03: 57

Today, trade in pure hydrocarbons to "non-CIS countries" (which includes Bulgaria) is not needed by Russia and, moreover, is harmful to both the population of the country and the economy.

The proof is very simple: - the income from all such trading almost exactly corresponds to the trade surplus of Russia (the difference in 2017 is $ 4-5 billion), and the incoming funds are frozen in various "reserves" and funds. Those. We trade on debt, and we do not receive any goods or services for real goods.

It seems that this is not scary, tk. based on the proverb "The stock does not hold a pocket", but it is not.

Oil workers, gas workers, as well as everyone who "sits on the pipe" want to receive wages, and managers also want bonuses, but the funds received for their goods are frozen and therefore rubles are simply printed. This, in turn, means one thing: - Inflation. Those. we all, from small to large, support oil and gas workers and their managers with our wallet.

But that is not all. We feed our economic competitors with cheap hydrocarbons, create jobs there and make it unnecessary to transfer processing production to Russia, and this is no longer just a mistake or stupidity, but it looks like ...
KNF

+1

30 August 2020 20: 00

1) Greece buys gas from Gazprom at 2 times more expensive than Germany?
2) Why don't you write anything about friendly Azerbaijan?
3) Why don't you write that Turkey has agreed to a gas pipeline with Russia and has stopped buying gas and is buying it entirely from Azerbaijan?

4) Did the Turks recognize Crimea?
Marciz

0

31 December 2020 08: 42

Do not confuse "Russian energy projects" and "Jewish-oligarchic projects" a clear example of the price of housing and communal services in Russia and the increase in the retirement age, as people leave the country from despair, die from the systemic sale of drugs and therefore there is no one to work !!!!