It looks like satire because it's a perfect representation of the Orientalist cliches that have been debunked in academia (almost universally rejected actually) and on this forum over and over and over again. You're spouting 19th century Orientalist bull-crap. What do you think happened to the Janissaries? Do you even know what the New Order/Tanzimat is or do you have to go to Wikipedia? The Ottoman elite was making drastic changes to their state since the time of Napoleon. Islamic scholars were key to the reform efforts in Ottoman schools. Places like Syria and Selanika boomed in economic productiity during the 19th century. You just keep spouting so many cliches that it's hard to keep up.
Then Lampiao mentions a "Turkish core". "Turk" was simply a term for backwoods Anatolian peasant before the 1877-8 war and had to be painstakingly constructed and expanded afterwards. Can you please tell how me "Turk" was even defined before the 20th century? Or how the second most poorest and most irrelevant part of the Ottoman state (Anatolia) is supposed to be the "core"?
I wouldn't say that. The Ottoman state after Mahmud II was a somewhat modernized state, much like Tsarist Russia. It never had any hope of regaining its power under Suleiman the Magnificent, of course, but it could have been a great power with much ecclesial influence.
The Ottomans were centred around the Balkans until the 1877-78 war.
No, the Ottomans only moved towards becoming a failed state after the 1877-78 war, which caused the emergence of Turkish nationalism, and it only became a truly failed state in the 20th century.
Ah, ok. I admit, I probably overlooked too many details like Tanizimat and other reforms. I mean, they wouldn't have survived past the 20th Century otherwise. I'm sorry about that.