Session Profile: Martin Helme

The political focus is centered on issues of Estonian security and national defense, sharply criticizing the government's (especially the Reform Party's) inaction and incompetence in managing Russian provocations (the shadow fleet, drones, airspace violations). Hoia maintains a strongly oppositional stance, accusing the government of living in a world of slogans and being detached from reality. They also strongly oppose tax increases (VAT, income tax, car tax, excises, land tax) and entering into war with Russia, emphasizing that voters have not provided a mandate for such actions. The political framework is heavily results-oriented, stressing the government's failure in tangible action.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in the fields of national defense and international maritime law, clearly distinguishing Estonia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from its territorial waters and defining the boundaries of jurisdiction. Specific examples and names are cited, including the tanker Argent/Jaguar, Chief of the General Staff of the Defense Forces Vahur Karus, and former Navy Commander Jüri Saska. Furthermore, the speaker points to internal communication and operational errors within the government. The professional focus centers on operational readiness and the existence of action plans for handling security incidents.

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong language (e.g., "lied from this podium," "delirious," "embarrassing") and sarcasm. The focus is placed on highlighting the contradiction between the government's actions and its rhetoric, labeling the government's discourse as "dull propaganda" and "absolute nonsense." Contrast is utilized (bluster vs. helplessness), and opponents are accused of "waving the Kremlin card" and earning "blood money."

The pattern of action involves submitting formal inquiries and responding to the government’s activities, particularly concerning past security incidents (e.g., the May events). It is noted that members of the Riigikogu receive information after the fact, often reading situation briefings only once they have already appeared in the newspapers. This activity is directed toward holding the government accountable to the parliament.

The main opponents are the government (specifically the Reform Party) and Prime Minister Kristen Michal, who stands accused of lying and endangering national security. Criticism is aimed at both policy (a security failure) and procedures (lack of transparency, inadequate parliamentary notification). The attacks are intense and personal, even labeling other ministers (Terras, Pakosta, Sutt, Ligi) as unintelligent.

Data is missing. The speaker's position is strongly oppositional and confrontational, which does not suggest any openness to compromise or cross-party cooperation regarding the issues addressed.

The focus is heavily on international and national security issues, including events that took place in Estonia's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and border defense. Important are comparisons with the conduct of allied countries (Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain, France, Germany) and Finland regarding adherence to international law and the closure of borders.

The economic views are strongly opposed to fiscal policy, criticizing the tax hikes imposed by the government (VAT, income tax, car tax, excise duties, land tax). They also highlight an ethical problem regarding the continuation of business activities with Russia (Stark Logistics), labeling it "blood money." Furthermore, they criticize allocating 5% of GDP to defense spending, claiming it is done so that "as much as possible can be stolen."

In the social sector, the withdrawal of child benefits is facing criticism. The overall social framework highlights the government's lack of both a moral mandate and a mandate granted by voters when making crucial decisions (like tax increases or entering a war).

The legislative focus is centered on holding the government accountable by means of interpellations regarding security and national defense issues. The objective is to compel the government to provide substantive answers to 13 questions related to the shadow fleet incident and to improve the procedures for informing Parliament.