Agenda Profile: Kalle Grünthal

The political position is strongly opposed to Draft Bill 642 SE, which concerns withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention for the purpose of using anti-personnel landmines. The speaker emphasizes a value-driven approach, prioritizing the safety of the civilian population after the cessation of hostilities, viewing mines as an outdated and ineffective means of defense. They argue that the use of mines does not provide significant protection for Estonia but instead endangers the lives of people moving through the area in the future. The overall political framework is strongly oriented toward long-term security and humanitarian obligations.

The speaker demonstrates knowledge of military history and technological development, emphasizing the role of drones in the war in Ukraine and the ineffectiveness of mines in modern conflicts. He uses historical parallels (Hitler, rifles versus automatic weapons) and references specific conflicts (Cambodia, Ukraine). He supports his arguments with personal experience finding explosive devices and handing them over to the Rescue Board.

The rhetorical style is a blend of logical argumentation (technological development, Estonia's territorial depth) and extremely emotional persuasion. The speaker employs graphic and shocking descriptions of a war victim to emphasize the consequences of mines, and references humanitarian activists such as Princess Diana. The tone is critical and direct, accusing opponents of outdated thinking and labeling their arguments "complete nonsense."

The speaker is actively involved in the debate on the current bill, delivering two speeches during the same session, the second of which is a response to criticism. He mentions communicating with his colleague Leo Kunnas before the session in order to gather information regarding mine victims. Furthermore, he refers to his own prior personal activity, having found and handed over more than 50 World War II era explosive devices to the Rescue Board (Päästeamet).

The primary opponents are the supporters of draft law 642 SE and the military command, who are being criticized for operating "in the spirit of last century's wars." The criticism is intense and conceptual, arguing that the opposing side's arguments regarding mine removal are "complete rubbish." The speaker categorically rejects the assertion that mines are the sole means of defense or that a minefield can hold the front line.

The speaker mentions working with his colleague, Leo Kunnas, to gather information regarding the effects of mines in Cambodia. He proposes a conditional compromise: that self-destructing mines should be used if absolutely necessary, but stresses the need to uphold the convention, thereby demonstrating openness to alternative solutions.

The focus is on Estonia's national defense concept and international treaties (the Ottawa Convention). International examples are used in the argumentation to support this position, referencing the experience of the drone war in Ukraine and the victims of landmines in Cambodia. Estonia's limited territorial depth (a couple of hundred kilometers) is also mentioned.

Not enough data

The social focus is on humanitarian issues and the protection of the civilian population, highlighting the mass casualties and long-term health damage caused by landmines after the cessation of hostilities. The speaker employs a powerful moral framework, referencing the work of Princess Diana and providing graphic descriptions of human suffering. He/She stresses that this mortal threat will continue to endanger civilians well into the future.

The main legislative focus is on opposing Bill 642 SE (withdrawal from the convention regarding anti-personnel mines). The speaker is acting as a critic and opponent of the initiated bill, urging against withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. He focuses on the fact that the Ministry of Defence's plans to purchase cannons and self-propelled artillery do not correspond to the realities of modern warfare.