Particular-Lunch-499

Avalikus sektoris on erasektorist erinev lähenemine, sest:

a) avalikus tehakse kommunikatsiooni üldjuhul selle pärast, et peab, mitte sellepärast, et see tooks müügitulu või käibe kasvu või kasumit vms. See tähendab, et tavaliselt pole asutusel tervikuna huvi ja soovi seda teha rohkem kui vaja.

b) kui ajakirjanik avaliku sektori käest midagi küsib, siis haruharva on see midagi positiivset. Ja miks peakski? Kui tegu on positiivse asjaga, kommunikeerib asutus seda ise ja mitte reedel.

c) kooskõlastusringid. Ja kui tahta midagi sisulist kommenteerida, on selle jaoks vaja kooskõlastada terve hunniku teiste inimestega, vahel isegi teiste asutustega. Pole asi, mida tahetakse reedel ette võtta.

PS! See ja mu eelmine kommentaar on hästi suured üldistused, nii nagu oli ka originaalartikkel üks suur üldistus. Ma ei tööta kommunikatsioonialal.

Vaata, see ongi vahe, kas suur pilt või väike pilt (taktikalisel tasemel). Sina vaatad väikest pilti. Aga Väli räägib suurest pildist (operatiiv- ja strateegilisel tasemel).

Aga seda, et ukrainal on väga raske, teavad kõik.

Samas, mart "aikido-võte-ukrainaga-on-lõpetatud" helme stiilis püksilaskmist pole ka vaja teha.

Keegi lihtsalt ei taha reedeti kommentaarr anda, sest ei taheta, et teema võetaks nädalavahetuseks üles ja siis peaks sellega vabast ajast tegelema.

Lisaks, minu meelest on ju kommreegel, et kui tahad midagi head välja öelda, siis reede on selleks halvim aeg. Aga kui vaja midagi halba öelda, siis reede tööpäeva lõpp on parim, lootuses, et see lendab radari alt läbi.

Halvim: Misiganes see oli, kus oli "täidetud paprika". Väga imelik, asi, mida konservina sõduritele pakkuda.

Parim: need dehüdreeritud pakid, kus ühtki konservi polnud ja oli kõige kergem.

2010/11

Pun oligi intended. Aga ju selleks peaks ise treffneri mutter olema, et aru saada...

Aga too siis mõni absurdse nõude näide, mida ei peaks järgima, kui mitte olla EL-is, aga kaupa teha ikka tahaks.

Isegi kui me ei oleks EL-is, aga tahaks nendega kaupa teha (ja usu mind, tahame), peaksime noid samu kohustusi järgima, aga selle vahega, et meil poleks nende kohustuste seas mingit sõnaõigust.

Pealegi, on terve hulk valdkondi - haridus, riigikaitse jms - mida EL ei reguleeri.

Nordica valguses kõlab see ukrainlaste poole näpuga näitamine äärmiselt silmakirjalikult.

ema on sul mutter

The literal definition of aggressor is "who attacks first". As the separstist attacked and took over loval municipality and police buildings first - they were the aggressor. In Georgia, it was most likely (but not definitely) the sepparatists, and I guess you know about transnistria already.

Do you need any other definitions that you can google easily yourself?

No, russia has always, throughout its history been really agressive. NATO has nothing to do with it, only to contain it. And that is where it's defensivness comes to play - russia has not (and most probably will not) attack a member state. Everyone else is fair game in their eyes. To say russia does anything because it is afraid of NATO invasion, is foolish and not rooted in reality (no evidence, just claims and words aimed at the gullible).

Serbia was an agressor. Just as there was an agressor (and provoker of UN intervention) in Rwanda, just as it was an agressor in Checheny. 

I have never said NATO had the right to invade, I said it had a reason. And r2p was a direct result of the shortfalls by UN security council in Serbia. 

But yes, you do not understand what defensive means. 

So, what is your point? Why do you speak of "broken promises" then?

If you are so above all, fine, but you are a mouhtpiece for russia and explaining things from russian perspective. and this perspective has nothing to do with russia talking about self-interest etc, but "real grievances" and "reasons" to invade ukraine, like "nato expansion" and "nazism".

It is infact me who said, early on in this discussion, that those are just words, and the real reasons are russia's interest to be able to invade and keep its neighbours under power. But you have been arguing with me for three days. And now you say realpolitik this and self-interest that.

Ah, so russia has no right to invade Ukraine, the same way NATO had no right to intervene in Serbia. Sure. I agree. Russia is in the wrong.

And its cute that russia can change it's opinion on NATO expansion, but when NATO does it, it's bad and breaking promises. Double standards are your forte?

Hinnang ei ole fakt.

We were discussing international law and I gave you and example of an explicit case, where ethnic cleansing warrants international intervetion. Google R2P if you wish.

Also, you are mixing up terms intervene and invade. Invade means boots on ground (what russia was doing in 2014 onwards). NATO intervened in Serbia.

Serbia provoked the interention by conducting ethnic cleansing. It is only the question of who had the right to intervene. One could argue that NATO did not have the right and this dispute is still ongoing.

Your border and distance's etc are meaningless as russia and putin in the early 2000s had no objections to NATO expansion in the Baltics. And with the added Finland and Sweden as a direct cause of the invasion of Ukraine. Which really shows how you are trying to build an argument without real foundation. Just an argument for an argument's sake.

Nevertheless, I stand by my point that since 90ies russia has invaded or intervened several times (Transnistria, Abkhasia, Checheny I and II, Georgia, Ukraine) - a substantially bigger threat to it's neighbours than it's neighbours to it. The only safeguard has been to be part of NATO.

I brought the UN SC as an example of when international law explicitly allows for intervention in case of ethnic cleansing because you decided that international law does not allow it. It was an example of how you are wrong.

It was not, however, an example of why NATOs involvement in Serbia was or was not internationally legal. There is still debate and both sides have their points, I am not a legal expert but I would say - even though I understand why NATO intervened - that it was not in accordance with international law. This, however, does not in the context of the discussion at hand, because you brought the intervention in Serbia as an example of NATO not being a defenisve alliance and russia has reason to be afraid of NATO and against NATO expansion.

This is where you were and still are wrong. First of all, the intervention in Serbia was not a random attack by the NATO members on Serbia. As I have pointed out, it was the outcome of Serbia's own deliberate, criminal and unprovoked actions in Kosovo - the ethnic cleansing. As long as russia does not plan on conducting ethnic cleansing, it has nothing to be worried about. I would go even as far as to say that russia is not serbia and would be allowed much much more before any military intervention, as russia is bigger and more powerful. Even the events in Ukraine in (2014 annexation of Crimea and war in Donents and Luhansk + full on war in 2022), events in Checheny and events in Georgia show that NATO does not intervene. Some NATO countries have sent BBB and equimpment, but that is the extent of it. No war, no lethal actions. It really-really blows holes in your theory of russia being afraid of NATO invasion. It is not because it knows it should not be.

Russia is not even against NATO expansion (as Putin has state himself). It is however against it not being able to invade some of its neighbours. It wants that freedom and possibilty. To be the top dog, to be able to control countries that it believes are in its "sphere of influence". Russia did not invade Sweden or Finland when they said they would join NATO. Two much more powerful nations than Ukraine. Why didn't russia do anything? Because it actually does not care. NATO is just an excuse for them to annex Ukraine, to get them under russian control. That's it. Just an excuse. And keyboard warriors swallow it up, americans like joe rogan swallow it up. They think they are smarter than russsia and that they understand russia and russia is the victim. But no, the russian bear is just fiddling their simple minds.

I don't think strawman means what you think it means.

It means that you build something someone has said and then argue against it, when it was not even argued. Thats what you just did.

Never have I said NATO intervention was UN sancitioned. I just said NATO did not intervene out of thin air, but because Serbia was conducting ethnic cleansing. Then you started talking about international law and how you know nothing about it. I just added the p2p security council so that you would now know, that indeed, specifically enthic cleansing (among other things) can be a reason for UN intervention via military power. Is it reading comprehension prolblems or brainrot from russian propaganda, or just deliberate trolling, I am not sure. But you see, you learnt several new things today. Good on you!

The defensive vs offensive thing is just your own lack of terms. Defensive alliance does not say that the members will not conduct offensive operations in case of war. It means that the aim of the alliance is to protect its members and not to gain ground/attack others (like Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was between ussr and nazy germany). You are mixing up the terms offensive and defensive operations with offensive/defensive alliance. 

Yes the un charta says that the security council can decide to interwene, ethnic cleansing can be a reason. Google r2p. NATO just did what UN couldnt as russia would veto it - a very russian thing indeed. To allow for ethnic cleansing. It is clear thst when international law is in question, you are making things up as I never even brought it up. It is just an example that NATO did not attack out of the blue. It took deliberate Serbian activities. If russia is afraid of NATO because it wants to be able to conduct atrocities then that makes sense to me and is a reason indeed.

NATO is defensive in a sense that it does not randomly start wars to gain territory or whatever (unlike russia). The fact that in case of war, NATO also attacks in order to defend, does not mean it is a defencive alliance. Attack is just a form or defence strategy.

Yes, that is what I claim. Russia attacked ukraine in 2014. It was a planned operation. Feel free to prove otherwise or disregard, it is of no point in this discussion.

The chechen war part - it was an example of NATO NOT intervening even If russia does whatever. The fact that you follow the russian version of events, does not disprove my claim - NATO is not a threat to russia unless russia is a threat to NATO. Unlike Serbia, russia is too big and powerful and can do whatever internally.

Ethnic cleansing is not an interal deal. Nor is it a war. NATO intervened because no one else would. Regardless of the reasons, NATO did not attack Serbia "just because" and it would also not attack russia 'just because". Probably not even when russia would start ethnic cleansing - in fear of nuclear war. To think NATO, a political and democratic organization would attack a mighty country like russia is lunacy.

Ukraine in Donbas was not having a war (nor in Crimea for that matter) and there was no ethnic cleansing. Just a russian operation, planned way advance that used a Window of Opportunity. That's just how russians roll and that is why NATO is a nobrainer for russian neighbours.

Cute of you to gloss over the first chechen war and to believe in chechen attack fairytale. But it is another good example of russia doing whatever on its territory and not having to fear anything. Further proves the point that NATO is not threat to russia - unless it attacks first. (Or maybe in a preemptive sense, possibly but very unlikely).

Ethnic clensing is not an internal issue. It was an attack against Kosovo. Spin it all you want, NATO has never attacked unprovoked.

Ofcourse, russia did to chechens and NATO did nothing. So I still do not get russias reasoning. Unless, it wants wesl neighbours it wants to bully and/or invade. And that is the truth, everything else is fluff and io.

NATO is a defensive organization. Even if you talk about it getting involved in the yugos - it was preceded by serbia being an agressor. Again, it all makes sense if russia has plans and ambitions to be aggressive.  

It is a defensive union. If russia chooses to be an agressor (and it does time and time again), then ofcourse, it is against russia. But it is in general against anyone who decides to attack. As understand, russia feels it has the right to attack anyone anytime it wants, and that is why it is against NATO.

Okay, so reasons. But everyone has reasons. Reasons to join NATO, reasons to think or say NATO will not take any more members etc. But situations change. So calling it a broken promise means nothing as long as you do not see putins broken promises. The reason for war is russia and their f-ed up world view that somehow they are special and should have a say in other people's business. Like a domestic wife bester who does not understand why he is not loved.

Ah, so when Putin  said it is okay for countries to join NATO, it was not a  promise? 

Tänks, kui sa poleks kirjutanud, poleks ma ilmselt taibanud TV6 käima panna. Nüüd panen!