By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

The main criticism is directed at the government's ambiguous response and the stances taken by former high-ranking defense officials and civil servants (Salm, Kallas, Herem, Palm, Terras). These former senior representatives are criticized for voicing analogous positions—such as advocating for the deployment of NATO forces to Ukraine or establishing a defense industry in anticipation of war—which are seen as increasing the risk of conflict.

The main opponents are the coalition and the government, who are accused of demagoguery, willful ignorance (or stonewalling), and corrupt mutual protection. The criticism is intense and covers both political aspects (excise duties, missions) and procedural aspects, as well as personal warnings regarding accountability (the COVID-19 issue). Compromise is ruled out until the opposing side begins to take the opposition's arguments into consideration.

The criticism is aimed at the Ministry of the Interior and the lack of clarity in the government's crisis planning, specifically noting that "there is no very clear plan." The objection is rooted in policy and procedure, raising doubts about the capacity of officials (the Rescue Board, the Women's Voluntary Defence League) to manage hundreds of thousands of people and guarantee their security.

The primary adversary is the governing coalition, particularly the Reform Party, which stands accused of corruption, money laundering, and facilitating the mutual protection of pedophiles. The criticism leveled is intense, personal, and procedural, alleging that the opponents are disregarding both the constitution and the rules of order. There is a complete absence of any readiness to compromise, with predictions of the opponents being swiftly swept aside.