Agenda Profile: Peeter Ernits
Inquiry Regarding the Explosion of an Attack Drone on the Territory of Estonia (No. 810)
2025-11-10
XV Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
Political Position
The speaker adopts a strong opposition stance regarding the government's security policy and inaction, arguing that security is not "in safe hands" and that the government's hands are shaking. He criticizes the Prime Minister and Kristen Michal for "blustering" and demands that the Riigikogu (Parliament), as the government's employer, take control. The political focus is directed at the shortcomings of the government's actions and the lack of parliamentary oversight. He also asks whether Estonia has permitted Ukraine to use its airspace to attack targets in Russia.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates in-depth expertise on the subject of the drone attack, having repeatedly visited the blast site, seen the crater (nearly 3 meters in diameter), and possessing fragments of the drone. He highlights specific security shortcomings, such as the lack of shelters and threat mitigation measures, as well as the absence of acoustic sensors to detect the sound of attack drones at the end of August. Furthermore, he has thoroughly read the generals' 256-page report, defending its contents against criticism.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker’s style is personal, emotional, and intensely critical, employing powerful imagery and emphasizing their personal presence at the scene. They detail the background of the events (the sickening sound, the size of the crater, the time of day) and use biting language to criticize the government and parliament ("a pathetic rubber stamp," "hands are shaking," "slack, comfortable, and silent in their laziness"). The tone is urgent and demands immediate action.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker has been very actively engaged with this specific topic (the drone explosion), having repeatedly visited the scene and communicated directly with military personnel. He references a previous related interpellation that he himself submitted, and has spent the last few days poring over the generals' report. This demonstrates consistent and dedicated work in the parliamentary oversight of security matters.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary targets are the government leadership, specifically the Prime Minister and Kristen Michal, who face criticism for their incompetence in security matters and their self-assured "bluster." The criticism is both personal—noting that their hands are shaking and their gaze is dull—and political, citing their failure to secure early warning systems. The critique also extends to the Reform Party "generals" affiliated with the government, and more broadly, the complacency and laziness prevalent in the Riigikogu (Parliament).
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker criticizes the general lack of cooperation and complacency within the parliament but praises and defends the work done by certain colleagues (such as Leo Kunnas) and generals who drafted the defense sector report. He supports the creation of parliamentary reports, signaling a desire for substantive cooperation within the legislature aimed at improving oversight.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker highlights a specific regional focus, emphasizing that the war reached Estonian territory via the shores of Lake Võrtsjärv, Antsla, and Southern Estonia. This directly links the national security issue with the communities and residents of Southern Estonia.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Insufficient data.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker's primary legislative focus is on strengthening parliamentary oversight and holding the government accountable through interpellations. He emphasizes the necessity of producing significantly more parliamentary reports so that the Riigikogu is not a "pathetic rubber stamp," but a real parliament.
4 Speeches Analyzed