Small countries especially the ones suffering from the very strong influence of Great Powers did not have the possibility by their own to make changes within the external policy. The newly formed Romanian State happened to belong to the same countries category. Having entered the process of decline Tsarist Empire in the East, Austrian Empire in the West and the Ottoman Empire in the South from the Danube River were still strong enough to oppress the disobedient vassals. 

(see part I...)

Thus, A. I. Cuza, the first Hospodar of the Unified Principalities chose the only way out to resolve the created situation: to form the coalition with Great Powers. It is evident that Romanians had to knock at many doors to find the best solution. It would be naïve if one suggested the Romanian external policy lacked continuity, ingratitude and dishonesty. Great Powers did not even try to hide the same “qualities” when it came to find someone to take the blame. Remember Austria expressing its “gratitude” and “acknowledgement” towards Russian people offering them their help during the Crimean war intended to quash the Hungarian revolution. There is no need to delve deeper into the history looking for long – forgotten cases and events. Remember some other, recent events!  Pursuing unworthy interests Russia betrayed Serbia (the former sisters belonging to the same communion!).

Romanian States already became vassal states of the Ottoman Empire by the end of the 15th century. Their dependence on the Ottoman Empire has lessened gradually by the year 1774. Their dependence after the Peace Treaty of Adrianople (also called the Treaty of Edirne) became even formal in 1829. Paying a reduced, symbolic tribute and relieving of the duty to respect the Sultan’s instructions were some of many other privileges the Romanian States enjoyed. It is worth mentioning that respecting formalities was one of the vital importance as well as the indispensable requirements maintained by the Western despotic regimes (the Ottoman Empire would belong to the same regime). That is why Turkey was supersensitive to any attempt to acknowledge the independence of the remaining vassals.  

Dependence of some European parts on the Asiatic Empire (undergoing economic, military and political decline) became the anachronism when the European fate depended on the colonial Empires and spheres of influence in the 19th century. The title of the “prince” given to Romanian Hospodars also became the humiliation until 1881. Thus, the international European society appears to be the most problematic because it relies upon conveniences and medieval treaties offering princes less power than Emperors or Kings according to titular hierarchy [1].

The first Romanian Sovereigns (we will use the term Sovereigns instead of the official name of the “Unified Principalities”) skillfully profited from the conflict that developed between the guarantor powers. What is meant here is, first of all, Austrian – Sardinian – French and Austrian – Prussian Wars bringing unification of Italy and formation of the German Empire. Austria, the main adversary of Romania’s unification and independence was disqualified.

Initially, Napoleon’s III France was the ally in the Romanian States fight for independence. Distance as well as the problems connected to its relationships with the neighbors (Austria and Prussia) did not allow France to have significant influence over the region. It was impossible for Austria to be the ally (half of the national Romanian territory belonged to Austria). Prussia, the other Great Power was occupied with formation of the “Small Germany” [2] (“Das Kleine Deutschland”). Thus, Prussia could not disperse its forces to attain other goals.

Maritime country, Great Britain did not want to participate in the conflict because the possible benefits it could accrue were dubious (it would be naïve to fight for creation of the bases near the aquatic closed basin of Pontic type). Even more, London already made its choice in favor of the Ottoman Porte having exercised control over the access to India, the Near East and the Middle East [3].   

A.I Cuza and Karol I did their best to resolve the problem of state’s independence without Russia during the pre – war period (Independence war of 1877-1878 is meant here). Their attempts failed. Previous bitter experience, territorial losses, famine, epidemics and Russian “Liberation” Army’s abusive exercise of power gave birth to the particular dislike towards Russia. Innate anti – Russian phobia of religious or civilization origin (like the one persisting in Polish or the West – European society) had nothing to do with the real reason.

Russia has never resigned its mind to be the second – rate European Power. One of the most skillful diplomats of the time, Prince Gortchakoff was among the first to revenge. He was appointed by Alexander II for the position of chancellor (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) of the Russian Empire. Gortchakoff wanted to abrogate the humiliating conditions of the Peace Treaty of Paris.

Russian chancellor resorted to the tactic of “Divide et impera!”(The phrase comes from the Latin divide et impera, which translates to “divide and rule”).Russia did not have time to think over “impera” because of the substantial reform process it underwent for the time being; Russia was not strong enough to bring the hegemony plans of Peter I to life. Instead, St. Petersburg was strong enough to sow the seeds of strife among its former adversaries implied in the Crimean war. Thus, the Quadruple Alliance was really “monstrous” which did not have the chance to survive in peace time.

Great maestro of revenge, Joseph Stalin compared revenge to the food. He said: “Revenge is like a soup which tastes better even the second day”. Gortchakoff obtained revenge by poisoning methodically his former enemies’ mind against each another. Simple threat or even Russia’s indifference became a terrible weapon in the hands of the defense. Russian chancellor managed to destroy all the enemy forces. Gortchakoff successfully abrogated the humiliating conditions of the Peace Treaty of Paris without a drop of Russian blood spilt in 1856.

Ungrateful Austria was taught a good lesson and was punished deservedly. Austrian – Prussian war started in 1866. The consequences of the maneuvers together with the outbreak of the hostilities at the frontier of Austrian Galicia were far-reaching. Vienna’s interpellations concerning Russian intentions were rejected maliciously.  Gortchakoff said his country was independent and had good reasons for doing what ever wished on its own territory. Though, Russian Empire’s role in the conflict under issue was not effective and even passive with regard to Austria in the Crimean War. Austrian commander – in – chief had to keep the troops near Galicia to prevent eventual Russian intervention. Or, the troops could change the fate of the war as well as of the hegemony within German zone near Sadova [4].

The same happened during the French – Prussian War when Russia displayed its impassiveness towards the collapse of the second Empire of Louis-Napoleon III Bonaparte. Even more, Russian troops did not appear to withdraw from Galicia frontier. The purpose of that conjuncture was to force Austria to refuse from getting involved in the conflict to support France. Gortchakoff, though, did not allow Bismarck to destroy definitively France after abdication of Louis-Napoleon (he alone is to blame for participation of France in the Crimean war). Hoping for revenge on Turkey Russia needed France’s support.

Weakened Austria, France dependent of the Russian good will, indifferent Germany and neutralized England formed the broad finally obtained spectrum of Gortchakoff‘s wishes. The last Russia’s dream was Constantinople. Access to the Mediterranean Sea was off the question. Greece, guarding its gates, has been irremediably lost for Russia since St. Petersburg displayed the impassiveness towards the collapse of Eteria. Competition between two nations for the Byzantine inheritance and Supremacy of the Orthodox world is the matter of no small consequence. Russia had to abdicate from power over Greece [5] if wanted to spread its tentacles over Constantinople (Greeks wanted Constantinople to be their capital).

Ethnical not confessional, as expected (if put forward tsarist motto said the truth), factor influenced a lot Russian attitude towards the orthodox Christians living on the territory of the Balkan Peninsula. As far as you know, after the enthronement of Peter the Great, Russian church became a subordinate element of the State infringing the commandment: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s”. It was the time of instauration of filetism sin. Conducting foreign policy Russia puts the accent on its ethnic composition (The same tendency was observed during the soviet period during the times of the soviet imperialism).

Bulgarians for instance fought on the other side of the barricade during two World Wars. Despite, they remained the Russians’ “favorites”. If you trace the history back you will notice that Greeks have never enjoyed Russian gratitude. Russians have never appreciated Greeks’ difficult sacrifice for the common victory.

Obtaining the state’s independence in 1878, Serbia treaded in the steps of Romania, finishing by signing of Ally Treaties with Austro – Hungary and Germany. Unlike Romanians, Serbians have never been accused of betrayal and cowardice. Even more, Russia got involved completely unprepared into the First World War (bringing disaster in October, 1917) to help Serbians escape the punishment it deserved in fact for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo (thus, researchers affirm that assassination under issue was executed by Serbian masons with the participation of Austrian Masons dreaming about abolition of Austro Hungarian monarchy). Remember, Socialist Yugoslavia policy also did not display loyalty towards Moscow. 

In 1871, after Sedan catastrophe and France’s capitulation, Gortchakoff declared the conditions of the Peace Treaty of Paris annulled and void with the exception of some paragraphs stipulating territorial cessions and full demilitarization of Aland Islands in the Baltic Sea. From then on the Ottoman Empire’s fate was sealed. Russia instigated the Slavs living on the territory of Balkan Peninsula organize rebellions against the Porte. The Porte has paid the same coin:  butchery of the civil population being organized by the cherkes and the bashibazouk (Turkish başıbozuk, “damaged head”, meaning “leadless”, “disorderly”) militia [6].

The sound of Herzegovina (small region sharing the border with Montenegro inhabited by the Croatians; Cetinje [7] wanted to annex the territory under issue) rebellion was like the explosion which echoed throughout the residential area of Balkans. The fire ran through Bosnia and the North of Albania territories inhabited by Christians. Montenegro and Serbia declared war on Turkey in 1876. Despite the fact that Alexander II sent thousands of volunteers and offered the huge financial and military support Serbia was defeated and begged for mercy.

Serbia was defeated but the conflict continued to remain high. Next year Russians instigated Bulgarians living on the territory of Rumeli, (Turkish pashalik what is present – day Bulgaria) previously displaying loyalty towards the Porte, to rebel. Turks reacted promptly and violently: more than thirty thousand deaths only near Sophia region! The reason was finally found! Russia declared war on the Ottoman Porte by the tacit agreement of the other Great European Power.

Military transport passed through Romanian borders in Serbia direction not once. Military equipment was distributed among anti – Ottoman insurrectionists throughout the Balkan Peninsula. Thus, A. I. Cuza allowed a caravan composed of six hundred gun carts pass through his territory in the direction of Serbia [8]. Later the Romanian States and Serbia became allies. That is why A. I. Cuza was accused of philoracism. Bringing the accusation against A.I. Cuza (he was mason to the marrow of his bones) is absolutely groundless because he was not fundamentally Russophile. The answer is rather simple: he wanted to be the Gospodar of both Unification and Independence; that is why he had to gain Russia’s respect.

[1] Many researchers say that the abolition of the feudal system occurred only by the end of the First World War when the majority of the monarchies which came into existence during the period  known as the Middle Ages disappeared from the map. Hereditary dynasties being under the wardship of the European States were substituted by the presidents elected on the principle of the universal vote and separation of powers.

[2] Bismarck did not like the idea of including the Habsburg Empire into newly unified Germany. He was afraid of dilution of ethnic German element, or, only 10 per cent of Austria population constituted German ethnic groups and assimilation of those who spoke the other language was practically impossible.

[3] Do not forget that Great Britain has never showed altruistic feelings. Thus, English Imperialism proved its worth as mercantile.

[4] Sadová (sä`dôvä), Ger. Sadowa, village, N central Czech Republic, in Bohemia, near Hradec Králové. It was the site of a decisive Prussian victory over the Austrians in 1866, during the Austro-Prussian War or Seven Weeks War, June 15–Aug. 23, 1866, between Prussia, allied with Italy, and Austria, seconded by Bavaria. The engagement is also known as the battle of Königgrätz, from the German name for Hradec Králové. The battle was won by the Prussians. After the Battle of Sadová, Austria had to renounce from bringing the unification of Germany under its aegis into being (“Das Grosse Deutschland” – Great Germany that was supposed to comprise the Habsburg Empire).

[5] Catherine II dreamed of creating the new “Byzantine Empire” with Constantinople as center and Russian Prince as head. Greeks would find it convenient for them to be the constituent part of the new state because their nation’s dominancy would not be changed.

[6] Regions under issue were also abandoned by the majority of the local Muslim population after Turkey’s withdrawal from the basin of the Black Sea and the Caucasus (the Cherkes and the Tatars). The fugitives settled the regions bordering the Balkans like military colonists constituting the irregular troops dung the wartime (the bashibazouk).The troops under issue were distinguished by the excessive cruelty towards the local Christian population – the way they took vengeance on for the lost Motherland.

[7] Cetinje (tsĕ`tĭnyĕ), town, S Montenegro. Cetinje is Montenegro capital until 1914. It grew around a monastery founded in 1485 and became the residence of Montenegro’s ruling prince-bishops; it remained the capital of Montenegro until 1945. The monastery, the burial place of the Montenegrin princes, and the former royal palace (now a museum) remain.

[8] Compartment of Russian “volunteers” in Serbia which did not manage to come across with “specific” traits of the national Russian character did its best to kill Serbians’ love towards the older brothers. “Volunteers’” excessive abuse of power was also condemned by the Russian mass – media.