What if Russia attacked Bulgaria during the Balkan Wars?

[raharris1973]

The Russians set the stage for the Balkan Wars, by encouraging the establishment of the Balkan League, but did not intend for the League to take the initiative and attack the Ottomans and start the 1st Balkan War [St. Petersburg instead saw the League as a defensive barrier against Austria-Hungary]. During the 1st Balkan War, the Russians ended up threatening to join the fighting, but ironically, not against their traditional Ottoman foes.

No, the Russians actually threatened their traditional Bulgarian friends, who attacked headlong into Ottoman Thrace, and appeared, at least superficially, on the verge of Constantinople. Russia, feeling like nobody, nobody should be allowed to take over Constantinople from the Turks except themselves when they chose to do it, threatened the Bulgarians they would intervene if they moved on the Ottoman capital.

In OTL, in November, the Bulgarians disregarded the Russian warnings attacked the Turkish lines at Catalca. They ended up bogging down within weeks, and there was a ceasefire that started in January, so the Bulgarians never took the city. But the Russians were angry.

What if the Russians ran out of patience right away in November 1912, declared war on the Bulgarians, and attacked them? As a bilateral affair, the Russians have the problem of only being able to reach Bulgaria directly by sea. Could the Russian Army and their Black Sea fleet perform an opposed landing on the Bulgarian coast, seize a port and expand a perimeter of occupation?

I would assume, the Russians would seek to do the more secure and effective thing and march Army troops overland from southwest Russia through Romania to Bulgaria.

Would Romania grant the Russian Army passage via land to Bulgaria? They could be reluctant for fear the Russians would never leave. They also had a Hohenzollern King and a secret commitment to the Triple Alliance. However, the Russians could offer to support Romanian territorial claims at Bulgarian expense, in southern Dobruja, and promise to respect Romanian independence. Romania might also be afraid to say no to Russia.

If the Romanians said no, that's one thing. But I think it is more likely the Romanians say yes, because in OTL, they ended up turning against the Bulgarians anyway in the summer of 1913. In this scenario, they are just doing it several months early, and with Russian support - they know they can't lose!

This would work out to be winter, late December1912 - January 1913 Russian and Romanian offensive, crossing the Danube at multiple points into Bulgaria, that should quickly pull the pressure off the Ottomans and occupy the Bulgarian heartland.

Does anyone come to the Bulgarians aid, or are they left to get crushed on their own?

Would Britain intervene in favor of Bulgaria, seeing this as the Russians getting too close to the straits? (although ironically, Russia would be de facto cobelligerent with the Ottomans) If they tried, I imagine they would try to intervene via Greece and the Greeks.

I really, really think we can exclude the idea of the Serbs & Montenegrins fighting the Russians to aid the Bulgarians.

Would the Austro-Hungarians intervene to aid the Bulgarians against the Russians? How? By attacking across the Russian border, or Romanian border? Transylvanian alpine passes are probably frozen closed in winter.

Might the Austrians not confront the Russians directly, but launch "parallel aggression" of their own, against Serbia, to match Russian influence on the Balkan peninsula?

In any case, after occupying Bulgaria, and likely forcing regime change, I imagine the Russians will seek any excuse to keep garrisons there as long possible. Occupied Bulgaria would put them right on the border with Turkish Thrace after all.

The question is if the Russians are able to settle down and enjoy this position for any moments of quiet without WWI having broken out beforehand.

Supposing the Russians do end up established there, by 1913, Russia has nice strategic position with its armies border the Ottomans in Asia in the Caucasus and in Europe in Bulgaria. Any time an excuse emerges, or it wants to make one up, it is in a good position to start a war with the Ottomans, and seize Constantinople and the straits, and Greater Armenia, in the initial campaign. This could be at convenience in 1914, 15 or 16 or never.

Alternatively unless Serbia has been occupied by Austria as I suggested might happen above, Serbia now has a direct land connection to Russian armies it can leverage if it gets into any confrontation with Austria over Albania in 1913 or an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914. This might make Serbia more bold or stubborn.

Russia could back Serbia as OTL, leading to WWI, but with more of its troops hanging out in the Balkans at the start of the war. Or pre-occupied with the southward strategic direction, and the hassles of controlling Bulgaria, maybe Russia would hang Serbia out to dry vis-a-vis the Austrians.

I think there's an opportunity to get almost the same results with a PoD a few months later in the 2nd Balkan War.

Suppose like in the scenario above, Russia is all angry with Bulgaria, contemplates war, begins preparing for it, but isn't ready in the winter time, and the immediate threat that Constantinople will fall passes.

However, Russia has all its preps ready in case of an emergency. When Bulgaria attacks Serbia and Greece, starting the 2nd Balkan War, Russia declares war, encourages Romania to do the same, and begins to march.

In many ways, this option is even better diplomatically/domestically for Russia. Russia can say it had to attack Bulgaria for its mad assault on its Orthodox brothers, Russia is coming down on the Bulgarians with 4 allies (Romania, Serbia, Greece, Ottomans) while the Bulgarians have none, so the occupation should be swift.

There's still those risks of Austrian (and by extension, German) involvement, I guess.

Your thoughts on all this?

 

[stevep]

The Russians set the stage for the Balkan Wars, by encouraging the establishment of the Balkan League, but did not intend for the League to take the initiative and attack the Ottomans and start the 1st Balkan War [St. Petersburg instead saw the League as a defensive barrier against Austria-Hungary]. During the 1st Balkan War, the Russians ended up threatening to join the fighting, but ironically, not against their traditional Ottoman foes.

No, the Russians actually threatened their traditional Bulgarian friends, who attacked headlong into Ottoman Thrace, and appeared, at least superficially, on the verge of Constantinople. Russia, feeling like nobody, nobody should be allowed to take over Constantinople from the Turks except themselves when they chose to do it, threatened the Bulgarians they would intervene if they moved on the Ottoman capital.

In OTL, in November, the Bulgarians disregarded the Russian warnings attacked the Turkish lines at Catalca. They ended up bogging down within weeks, and there was a ceasefire that started in January, so the Bulgarians never took the city. But the Russians were angry.

What if the Russians ran out of patience right away in November 1912, declared war on the Bulgarians, and attacked them? As a bilateral affair, the Russians have the problem of only being able to reach Bulgaria directly by sea. Could the Russian Army and their Black Sea fleet perform an opposed landing on the Bulgarian coast, seize a port and expand a perimeter of occupation?

I would assume, the Russians would seek to do the more secure and effective thing and march Army troops overland from southwest Russia through Romania to Bulgaria.

Would Romania grant the Russian Army passage via land to Bulgaria? They could be reluctant for fear the Russians would never leave. They also had a Hohenzollern King and a secret commitment to the Triple Alliance. However, the Russians could offer to support Romanian territorial claims at Bulgarian expense, in southern Dobruja, and promise to respect Romanian independence. Romania might also be afraid to say no to Russia.

If the Romanians said no, that's one thing. But I think it is more likely the Romanians say yes, because in OTL, they ended up turning against the Bulgarians anyway in the summer of 1913. In this scenario, they are just doing it several months early, and with Russian support - they know they can't lose!

This would work out to be winter, late December1912 - January 1913 Russian and Romanian offensive, crossing the Danube at multiple points into Bulgaria, that should quickly pull the pressure off the Ottomans and occupy the Bulgarian heartland.

Does anyone come to the Bulgarians aid, or are they left to get crushed on their own?

Would Britain intervene in favor of Bulgaria, seeing this as the Russians getting too close to the straits? (although ironically, Russia would be de facto cobelligerent with the Ottomans) If they tried, I imagine they would try to intervene via Greece and the Greeks.

I really, really think we can exclude the idea of the Serbs & Montenegrins fighting the Russians to aid the Bulgarians.

Would the Austro-Hungarians intervene to aid the Bulgarians against the Russians? How? By attacking across the Russian border, or Romanian border? Transylvanian alpine passes are probably frozen closed in winter.

Might the Austrians not confront the Russians directly, but launch "parallel aggression" of their own, against Serbia, to match Russian influence on the Balkan peninsula?

In any case, after occupying Bulgaria, and likely forcing regime change, I imagine the Russians will seek any excuse to keep garrisons there as long possible. Occupied Bulgaria would put them right on the border with Turkish Thrace after all.

The question is if the Russians are able to settle down and enjoy this position for any moments of quiet without WWI having broken out beforehand.

Supposing the Russians do end up established there, by 1913, Russia has nice strategic position with its armies border the Ottomans in Asia in the Caucasus and in Europe in Bulgaria. Any time an excuse emerges, or it wants to make one up, it is in a good position to start a war with the Ottomans, and seize Constantinople and the straits, and Greater Armenia, in the initial campaign. This could be at convenience in 1914, 15 or 16 or never.

Alternatively unless Serbia has been occupied by Austria as I suggested might happen above, Serbia now has a direct land connection to Russian armies it can leverage if it gets into any confrontation with Austria over Albania in 1913 or an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914. This might make Serbia more bold or stubborn.

Russia could back Serbia as OTL, leading to WWI, but with more of its troops hanging out in the Balkans at the start of the war. Or pre-occupied with the southward strategic direction, and the hassles of controlling Bulgaria, maybe Russia would hang Serbia out to dry vis-a-vis the Austrians.

I think there's an opportunity to get almost the same results with a PoD a few months later in the 2nd Balkan War.

Suppose like in the scenario above, Russia is all angry with Bulgaria, contemplates war, begins preparing for it, but isn't ready in the winter time, and the immediate threat that Constantinople will fall passes.

However, Russia has all its preps ready in case of an emergency. When Bulgaria attacks Serbia and Greece, starting the 2nd Balkan War, Russia declares war, encourages Romania to do the same, and begins to march.

In many ways, this option is even better diplomatically/domestically for Russia. Russia can say it had to attack Bulgaria for its mad assault on its Orthodox brothers, Russia is coming down on the Bulgarians with 4 allies (Romania, Serbia, Greece, Ottomans) while the Bulgarians have none, so the occupation should be swift.

There's still those risks of Austrian (and by extension, German) involvement, I guess.

Your thoughts on all this?

Interesting idea. A Russian permanent presence in Bulgaria would cause tension with Britain as well as Austria but probably not enough to overcome fears about Germany, at least in the short term. Especially in the 2nd case, where Russia can claim its suppressing Bulgarian aggression.

I'm not sure that Austria would do anything without German support and have doubts that Germany would react that quickly. Especially since Romania, Serbia, Greece and possibly Turkey would be 'allied' with the Russians and hence Austria would be rather exposed. Also the entire German war plan is a massive attack on France to knock them out before turning on Russia. Are they going to carry that out, expanding the war greatly and leaving Austria even more exposed? Or work out a move east which leaves France undefeated behind them?

Assuming that something like WWI was to develop a bit later then the position would be a bit stronger for the allies unless Russia has been pressurized into withdrawing from Bulgaria. Bulgaria is now in the allied camp, even if unwillingly, which means that it won't be backstabbing Serbia and Russia has a land route to reach Serbia with troops and supplies. Also Romania could well be closely allied, with a quick promise of Transylvanian although while he lives the king will probably oppose war with Germany. - OTL the king died in autumn 1914.

Most of all possibly Russian forces in Bulgaria puts them on the Ottoman doorstep. Which is a very good reason for them not to join the CPs. As such Russia can continue to trade with the rest of the world and get military aid from the western allies, while neither Russia nor Britain has to commit forces to defending against the Turks. If they do join the central powers then while it would be bloody I would expect Russia to overrun E Thrace fairly quickly and reopen the straits. As such you could see a markedly shorter and less bloody WWI.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Russophobia would be massive in Bulgaria, as would be the case in Poland in this case. In any inter-alt-Great War scenario, you'd probably see a different of Intermarium stretching from Gdynia to Burgas. The Bulgarians would never forget the Russian occupation in any case, but given the fact that the Bulgarians have ignored Russia's warning to not attack the Ottomans, the Russians can justify their actions by saying that Bulgaria didn't listen to their warnings.

I honestly believe that the Russian goal of ultimately taking Constantinople from the Ottomans had handcuffed themselves diplomatically, as the international community during this time was adamant against any Russian attempt at taking any more Ottoman territory. In addition to the areas that they acquired from the Ottomans in the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War (mainly eastern Turkey with a significant Armenian and Georgian population there), the Russians were only able to secure the independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, but their proposed territorial makeup of Bulgaria in the Treaty of San Stefano might have angered the other Orthodox nations (Serbia and Greece) as the territories that they were interested in would be in the hands of their Bulgarian rival. Plus Greece has a bigger legitimate claim to the straits around Constantinople, and it's close to Britain and France. Serbia on the other hand, has an interest in the region of Macedonia as well.

Anyways, going back to the Balkan Wars where Russia plans to attack Bulgaria if they attacked the Ottomans, an alternative proposal could have been for Russia to mediate in the conflict before the Bulgarians launch an offensive against the Ottomans in Catalca. The Russians might also benefit from preserving the Ottomans as a de facto puppet in case they need to extract more concessions from them, although that might also result in a collision with the British as well.

 

[Buba]

I remember reading - mind you, almost 40 years ago - that Russia in 1914 did have the capacity to land a Corps in the Black Sea region. How much truth is there to it, and - most importantly - when was that amphibious capacity created - the text did not say.
However, in OTL by the time the Ottomans joined the war the land component (the materiel in particular) for such a Corps had been used up in the fighting in Poland.

If Russia moves against Bulgaria I imagine that it'd become A-H's BFF overnight. And things probably spiral like in OTL, leading to a world war. I know that France told Russia "you're in it alone, buddy" about the Balkan mess, but I cannot imagine France not intervening when Germany makes a move (which is likely, with its "Russia scare" which was as grounded in reality as British "Russia invades India" paranoia) and/or Russia starts to get a beating.

If Germany assininely attacks France though Belgium then the germanophobic warmongers in the British Cabinet get their pretext to pounce on peaceloving Germany.

 

[ATP]

If we do not start WW1 in 1912 that way,then,becouse troops would be moved there,no attack on East Prussia.Which mean no sending germans reserve to East Front.Which mean succesful Schieffen plan.Which mean Taking Paris in 40 days.Which mean german Europe.

Congrats - you created UE in ,let say,1916.

 

[Buba]

No, not 1912.
It'd be spring 1913.
Check dates of 1st Balkan War.

succesful Schieffen plan.Which mean Taking Paris in 40 days.Which mean german Europe.

Naa.
France Fights On.
There are hundreds of kilometres between Paris and the Pyrennes or Mediteranean Sea. And the German Army is exhausted, with its draught animals rebelling in a Denial Of Service, unpatriotic strike.

 

[raharris1973]

Interesting idea. A Russian permanent presence in Bulgaria would cause tension with Britain as well as Austria but probably not enough to overcome fears about Germany, at least in the short term. Especially in the 2nd case, where Russia can claim its suppressing Bulgarian aggression.

I'm not sure that Austria would do anything without German support and have doubts that Germany would react that quickly. Especially since Romania, Serbia, Greece and possibly Turkey would be 'allied' with the Russians and hence Austria would be rather exposed. Also the entire German war plan is a massive attack on France to knock them out before turning on Russia. Are they going to carry that out, expanding the war greatly and leaving Austria even more exposed? Or work out a move east which leaves France undefeated behind them?

I agree on how this Russian fait accompli leaves Austria and Germany no easy answers even if they are angry about it, especially if the Russians hold their move until the 2nd Balkan War (summer 1913) and have Serbia and Greece on their side.

Do you all figure, like I do, that Romania would go along with Russian plans?

Assuming that something like WWI was to develop a bit later then the position would be a bit stronger for the allies unless Russia has been pressurized into withdrawing from Bulgaria. Bulgaria is now in the allied camp, even if unwillingly, which means that it won't be backstabbing Serbia and Russia has a land route to reach Serbia with troops and supplies. Also Romania could well be closely allied, with a quick promise of Transylvanian although while he lives the king will probably oppose war with Germany. - OTL the king died in autumn 1914.

I agree, assuming we get an exact parallel to OTL's WWI, with it starting as Austria takes on Serbia, Russia stands up for Serbia, Germany and France support their allies, etc. If an assassination or other Austro-Serb spark escalates to multi-power war, this is to Entente advantage, because Russia has the land connection to Serbia, Bulgaria is out of the game from the beginning, and the Ottomans can be taken out of the game immediately or scared from ever getting in. So in a full war the CP are down two allies and the CPs should lose faster.

I suppose there is on the other hand a chance that the great powers might end up reacting to an Austro-Serb spark or even Austro-Serb conflict a little differently than OTL however.

Britain may start cooling to the Entente in reaction to the Bulgaria move, which might make France more cautious, which might make Russia more cautious.

If Russia is open-minded, (not likely, but possible), it might let Austria punish Serbia for a provocation, figuring it's Austria's turn to teach a crappy little country a lesson, and Russia just had its own turn. Besides, Russia could say to Vienna and Berlin "free hand for you guys on Belgrade, and free hand for us on Constantinople and Straits?"

Alternatively, even if Russia feels compelled to be pro-Serbian, unlike in 1914, where it had no land border, its options are not limited to mobilizing for an invasion of Austria (and possibly Germany) in retaliation, thus providing an incentive, and excuse, for the German Schlieffen plan.

Instead, the Russians could try to split the difference, not mobilize or declare war on the Austrians, but, simply slide some troops over from Bulgaria to Serbia to be a defensive tripwire to deter the Austrians, leaving it clear its up to the CPs to mobilize or declare war. Or, if the Austrians invade north Serbia/Belgrade, the Russians could occupy (or "rescue") eastern/southern Serbia with its Bulgaria occupation force and arrange an agreed military line of demarcation with Austro-Russian fighting, and sell it at home saving the Serbs as much as they can.

I remember reading - mind you, almost 40 years ago - that Russia in 1914 did have the capacity to land a Corps in the Black Sea region. How much truth is there to it, and - most importantly - when was that amphibious capacity created - the text did not say.

I find it hard to believe they'd have their shit together for this.

If Russia moves against Bulgaria I imagine that it'd become A-H's BFF overnight. And things probably spiral like in OTL, leading to a world war.

Interesting. If Austria becomes Bulgaria's BFF, what is it's operational plan to help Bulgaria? Attack Russian Poland or Ukraine from Galicia to draw off forces on another front? Attack Romania to interrupt Russian/Romanian supply lines? Attack (or simply march through) Serbia to aid the Bulgarians?

I know that France told Russia "you're in it alone, buddy" about the Balkan mess, but I cannot imagine France not intervening when Germany makes a move (which is likely, with its "Russia scare" which was as grounded in reality as British "Russia invades India" paranoia) and/or Russia starts to get a beating.

This supposes Germany's first "move" is east-first, against Russia. Do you think that's what the Germans would do, simply because of the political origins of this crisis? Or would military logic persuade them to start off trying to take out France first regardless of the origins?

No, not 1912.
It'd be spring 1913.
Check dates of 1st Balkan War.
Naa.
France Fights On.
There are hundreds of kilometres between Paris and the Pyrennes or Mediteranean Sea. And the German Army is exhausted, with its draught animals rebelling in a Denial Of Service, unpatriotic strike.

Well, a more successful "Schlieffen Plan", wrecking more French armies, taking channel ports and Paris doesn't stop the French from fighting on, but it sure puts the Germans in a better position to win a long war.

 

[Buba]

Do you all figure, like I do, that Romania would go along with Russian plans?

A 50-50 call. Too many balls in the air - what Romania will do is linked with A-H, French, British etc. reactions. Also, Carol is in better shape I believe, hence yet another variable.

Or would military logic persuade them to start off trying to take out France first regardless of the origins?

This.
In OTL Moltke&friends lied to Wilhelm's face that "no can do" Ostaufmarsch - I imagine same happening here.
Here the Germans were Class One idiots - not only giving the generals too much leeway*, but also letting them develop a mobilisation plan with built in aggression against a neutral country in it

* when French generals pointed to Belgium - "Look see! way around German flank!" - French politicians double facepalmed and told the military - "try again .... ".

 

[ATP]

No, not 1912.
It'd be spring 1913.
Check dates of 1st Balkan War.

Naa.
France Fights On.
There are hundreds of kilometres between Paris and the Pyrennes or Mediteranean Sea. And the German Army is exhausted, with its draught animals rebelling in a Denial Of Service, unpatriotic strike.

You have a point - french would fight after losing Paris,but - still lost.But,at the same time,Russia would crush Turkey and gut A-H.Which mean,they could get ammo from England.
Main reason for their fall was lack of ammo for artillery.So,instead of german Europe,we would have some kind of draw.

No german Europe,rather peace with Russia getting Constantinopole.Nobody really cared about turks,after all.
And germans would get some lands from Russia,maybe baltic states? german elites ruled there.

 

[WolfBear]

The Russians set the stage for the Balkan Wars, by encouraging the establishment of the Balkan League, but did not intend for the League to take the initiative and attack the Ottomans and start the 1st Balkan War [St. Petersburg instead saw the League as a defensive barrier against Austria-Hungary]. During the 1st Balkan War, the Russians ended up threatening to join the fighting, but ironically, not against their traditional Ottoman foes.

No, the Russians actually threatened their traditional Bulgarian friends, who attacked headlong into Ottoman Thrace, and appeared, at least superficially, on the verge of Constantinople. Russia, feeling like nobody, nobody should be allowed to take over Constantinople from the Turks except themselves when they chose to do it, threatened the Bulgarians they would intervene if they moved on the Ottoman capital.

In OTL, in November, the Bulgarians disregarded the Russian warnings attacked the Turkish lines at Catalca. They ended up bogging down within weeks, and there was a ceasefire that started in January, so the Bulgarians never took the city. But the Russians were angry.

What if the Russians ran out of patience right away in November 1912, declared war on the Bulgarians, and attacked them? As a bilateral affair, the Russians have the problem of only being able to reach Bulgaria directly by sea. Could the Russian Army and their Black Sea fleet perform an opposed landing on the Bulgarian coast, seize a port and expand a perimeter of occupation?

Possibly, though I'm not an expert on Russian naval strength back then. Still, who would actually stop them? The Ottomans wouldn't since the Russians would be saving Constantinople for them.

I would assume, the Russians would seek to do the more secure and effective thing and march Army troops overland from southwest Russia through Romania to Bulgaria.

Would Romania grant the Russian Army passage via land to Bulgaria? They could be reluctant for fear the Russians would never leave. They also had a Hohenzollern King and a secret commitment to the Triple Alliance. However, the Russians could offer to support Romanian territorial claims at Bulgarian expense, in southern Dobruja, and promise to respect Romanian independence. Romania might also be afraid to say no to Russia.

If the Romanians said no, that's one thing. But I think it is more likely the Romanians say yes, because in OTL, they ended up turning against the Bulgarians anyway in the summer of 1913. In this scenario, they are just doing it several months early, and with Russian support - they know they can't lose!

Agreed that the Romanians would be more likely to say Yes than to say No here.

This would work out to be winter, late December1912 - January 1913 Russian and Romanian offensive, crossing the Danube at multiple points into Bulgaria, that should quickly pull the pressure off the Ottomans and occupy the Bulgarian heartland.

Does anyone come to the Bulgarians aid, or are they left to get crushed on their own?

Would Germany and A-H really be willing to risk war with Russia over this? Frankly, I doubt it.

Would Britain intervene in favor of Bulgaria, seeing this as the Russians getting too close to the straits? (although ironically, Russia would be de facto cobelligerent with the Ottomans) If they tried, I imagine they would try to intervene via Greece and the Greeks.

Unlikely since Anglo-Russian relations were relatively calm due to the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention.

I really, really think we can exclude the idea of the Serbs & Montenegrins fighting the Russians to aid the Bulgarians.

Agreed.

Would the Austro-Hungarians intervene to aid the Bulgarians against the Russians? How? By attacking across the Russian border, or Romanian border? Transylvanian alpine passes are probably frozen closed in winter.

Might the Austrians not confront the Russians directly, but launch "parallel aggression" of their own, against Serbia, to match Russian influence on the Balkan peninsula?

Frankly, I doubt that A-H would do either of these two things if Franz Ferdinand has anything to say about this. AFAIK, FF was pro-peace.

In any case, after occupying Bulgaria, and likely forcing regime change, I imagine the Russians will seek any excuse to keep garrisons there as long possible. Occupied Bulgaria would put them right on the border with Turkish Thrace after all.

The question is if the Russians are able to settle down and enjoy this position for any moments of quiet without WWI having broken out beforehand.

You know, I wonder if, while the Central Powers might be unwilling to fight Russia over a Russian invasion of Bulgaria, a permanent Russian presence in Bulgaria might be a completely different kettle of fish for them. If so, we could either see Russia backing down and withdrawing from Bulgaria or having WWI break out 1.5 years early. Depends on what position the Anglo-French also take in this crisis, really.

Supposing the Russians do end up established there, by 1913, Russia has nice strategic position with its armies border the Ottomans in Asia in the Caucasus and in Europe in Bulgaria. Any time an excuse emerges, or it wants to make one up, it is in a good position to start a war with the Ottomans, and seize Constantinople and the straits, and Greater Armenia, in the initial campaign. This could be at convenience in 1914, 15 or 16 or never.

Alternatively unless Serbia has been occupied by Austria as I suggested might happen above, Serbia now has a direct land connection to Russian armies it can leverage if it gets into any confrontation with Austria over Albania in 1913 or an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914. This might make Serbia more bold or stubborn.

Russia could back Serbia as OTL, leading to WWI, but with more of its troops hanging out in the Balkans at the start of the war. Or pre-occupied with the southward strategic direction, and the hassles of controlling Bulgaria, maybe Russia would hang Serbia out to dry vis-a-vis the Austrians.

I doubt that an embolded Russia would actually throw Serbia under the bus in this TL. But again, a permanent Russian military presence in Bulgaria could be deemed a sufficient casus belli by the Central Powers.

I think there's an opportunity to get almost the same results with a PoD a few months later in the 2nd Balkan War.

Suppose like in the scenario above, Russia is all angry with Bulgaria, contemplates war, begins preparing for it, but isn't ready in the winter time, and the immediate threat that Constantinople will fall passes.

However, Russia has all its preps ready in case of an emergency. When Bulgaria attacks Serbia and Greece, starting the 2nd Balkan War, Russia declares war, encourages Romania to do the same, and begins to march.

In many ways, this option is even better diplomatically/domestically for Russia. Russia can say it had to attack Bulgaria for its mad assault on its Orthodox brothers, Russia is coming down on the Bulgarians with 4 allies (Romania, Serbia, Greece, Ottomans) while the Bulgarians have none, so the occupation should be swift.

There's still those risks of Austrian (and by extension, German) involvement, I guess.

Your thoughts on all this?

Russia can kick Bulgaria's butt, but permanently stationing Russian troops in Bulgaria might simply trigger World War I earlier since I doubt that either Germany or A-H would actually be willing to tolerate this. This would completely cut off their land connection to the Ottoman Empire, after all.