To what extent was the 'Eastern Question' more to do with the European Powers than the Ottoman Empire? (1815 - 1915)

Begin answer with a brief contextualization of the Eastern Question, laying out the European and Ottoman positions of the period, with background factual basis (Crimean war; Treaty of Paris, Egypt, Balkan independence movements) Arguments in favour of European position: focus on the decline of the Ottoman Empire ('sick man of Europe'), longstanding imperial ambitions and considerations in the Near/Middle East (Great Game; India; Afghanistan). Growing foreign interest and involvement within the Ottoman Empire - Ottoman (central) bank, trade, Suez Canal, Mesopotamia and Northern frontier. Natural competition between powers, usage of diplomacy and exploitation of ongoing domestic events within the Ottoman Empire as means of furthering own goals. Arguments in favour of Ottoman position: focus on internal struggle in the period - series of weak sultans and poor governance allowing foreign influence and infiltration. Tanzimat reforms and constant process of modernization of the empire, growing pains? The rise of the 'Young Turks'/CUP and attempt to form nationhood - universal Ottoman identity, contrasted and opposed to the multinational foreign threats to the empire. The multiethnic and cultural composition of the empire made unity difficult; many longstanding ethnoreligious splits emerging into open conflict. Some successes against the further foreign action, although concessions to working with foreign powers out of necessity, rather than ideology or progress. Conclusion: On a superficial level, the 'Eastern Question' appeared to be another episode in the long-running story of inter-European powerplays as the Great Powers attempted to achieve hegemony both at home on the continent and further abroad, with the Ottoman Empire as the latest in a long line of international victims. [perhaps note that the term itself was coined by the European Powers, and therefore automatically unfairly delegitimises the Ottoman perspective] However, the question defines both European and Ottoman perspectives as opposing ends of a spectrum. Realistically, the situation was much more complex and was more cyclical - the Europeans depended on Ottoman 'shortcomings' as much as the Ottomans relied on the Europeans' overestimation of their own influence/oversimplification of the Ottomans. All in all, the issue is of significance to both 'sides' and assigning greater importance to one cheapens the legacy to the other.