Agenda Profile: Martin Helme
Sending Estonian soldiers to Ukraine
2025-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, information briefing
Political Position
The core political position is strong opposition to the plan to send Estonian soldiers to Ukraine, which is viewed as a direct step toward war with Russia and the initiation of the destruction of the Estonian state. This stance is intensely value-driven, emphasizing the survival of the nation and the need to prioritize Estonia's own defense, rather than weakening ourselves to assist other countries. The speaker accuses the government of actively working against the survival of the Estonian state and people.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of international security and military strategy, referencing the US position regarding the defense of NATO Article 5 and the self-defense priorities of other border nations (Finland, Poland). Specific terms like "stratcom language" are employed, and the size of a company (approximately 150 personnel) is cited. Additionally, the number of Ukrainian deserters in Estonia (over 10,000) is referenced.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and urgent, employing strong emotional appeals and rhetorical questions ("Have you gone mad?"). The speaker uses contemptuous terms ("absurd," "despicable") to describe the government's actions and emphasizes the threat to the nation's survival, juxtaposing the logical argument (the lack of NATO defense) with the emotional one.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is reacting swiftly to the government's actions, citing the press release issued by the Prime Minister last week and actively participating in the parliamentary debate (addressing Kristen Michal directly). The approach is reactive and centers on holding the government accountable for its political decisions.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is directed at the government, the prime minister, and specific ministers (Pevkur, Kristen Michal), who are accused of destroying Estonia and bringing war upon the country. The criticism is intense and includes both political (sending troops) and personal accusations (madness, incompetence), ruling out any compromise on an issue concerning the survival of the nation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
A lack of willingness to cooperate is evident; the speaker is confrontational and accuses the government of gambling with the nation's survival. It is emphasized that the responsibility for the decision to go to war rests with the politicians, not the Commander of the Defence Forces, indicating a clear delineation of political accountability.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is heavily on international security issues (the hot war between Ukraine and Russia, NATO Article 5) and Estonia's national defense. The stances of other nations (the US, Finland, Poland, Sweden, Great Britain, and France) regarding the deployment of troops to Ukraine are analyzed.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The social issue concerns Ukrainian deserters (over 10,000), who, in the speaker's opinion, should be sent to Ukraine to fight, instead of sending Estonian men there. This emphasizes the setting of priorities and raises the question of why Estonian citizens are being sent to die when there are draft-eligible men already present in the country.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main focus is on opposing the government's political decision (sending troops) and emphasizing the accountability of politicians, rather than initiating specific legislative bills. The speaker demands that politicians, not the Chief of Defense, be held responsible for the decision to go to war.
2 Speeches Analyzed