Comment by Bulgarian historian Alexander Stoyanov:
"As our Consul General in Ruse reports, the issue of the alleged Sofia conspiracy has received a satisfactory resolution. The Investigative Commission sent from Constantinople has managed to find only a few criminals. It has completed its work and should return here soon. The internal situation in the Bulgarian provinces, however, remains uncertain. A deep discontent is spreading among the population, caused by bad governance. This state of mind contains in its germ the elements of more than one conspiracy. It is undeniable that the happy outcome of the Sofia affair is due to the moderation of the Grand Vizier, who this time seems to have followed our advice. Instead of aiding Midhat Pasha's game by giving the circumstances an exaggerated importance, he recommended that the Commission not overreach its purpose by pushing the investigations beyond what was strictly necessary. January 18/30, 1873.
What we learn from the report:
The Russian Empire closely monitors the actions of Bulgarian revolutionaries in and outside Bulgarian lands.
The Russian diplomatic mission, represented by Ignatiev, advises and assists the Ottoman government in resolving issues related to the capture, conviction and liquidation of Bulgarian revolutionaries.
Count N. Ignatiev takes a direct stance on the investigation of the Arabakonash robbery and the subsequent arrests made by the Ottoman authorities.
The Russian position in the situation of September 1872 - January 1873 is for a limited-scale, punitive action by the Porte, which would not cause mass unrest among the Bulgarians, which Russia did not want at that time, since it was building an alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary and did not want to provoked Vienna, so that it would appear as if Petersburg had a hand in some Bulgarian conspiracy for an uprising.
Levski's death sentence was described as a "satisfactory development", which shows that for Russia the Internal Organization was a dangerous antithesis to Russian ideas among the Bulgarian Renaissance elite. Just like the BRCC, the VRO is an organization whose principles of independent struggle contradict the role of savior of the Bulgarians that Russia wants to play at an unspecified, future moment.
It is obvious that although he did not play a direct role in the capture of the Apostle and did not act directly to achieve a death sentence, Count Nikolai Ignatiev made every effort available through the means of his diplomatic mission to achieve a quick resolution of the "Sofia affair", to eliminate the captured leaders of the Internal Organization and to place Russia in a clear position of separation from Bulgarian revolutionary affairs, so as not to provoke a reaction from Austria-Hungary, which would threaten the emerging Alliance of the Three Emperors.
Behind these actions we should not look for some grandiose, anti-Bulgarian plan of Ignatiev. For him, the Bulgarians are an annoying pawn, who too often acts out of place, to the detriment of Russian interests. Rather, here we must assess the actions of the count in the context of the larger regional and even global Russian policy. At the same time, Russia is in the process of active expansion in Central Asia and the tension between Petersburg and London is increasing. In this context, it is of key importance for the Romanovs to gain the friendship of the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs in order to guarantee their European flank.
It is right, in this case, to realize that the actions of Count Ignatiev place the trial against Levski and the struggle to appease the Bulgarian revolutionaries in the context of the Great Game that Russia is waging against Great Britain - both in the Balkans and in Asia. This is a good opportunity to look from a broader perspective at the significance of Vasil Levski's work and the place of the Bulgarian liberation struggle as part of the great historical flow of the Victorian era.