AI Profiling: Raimond Kaljulaid

The political stance has been consistently and unwaveringly focused on national security, demanding a rapid and maximum increase in defense spending (with the goal of reaching 4–5% of GDP) and the development of the domestic defense industry, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of allied relations and European strategic autonomy. The viewpoints are strongly value- and procedure-based, emphasizing political integrity, moral consistency (supporting Ukraine), and the social democratic principle of fair burden sharing in tax policy. Over time, there was a clear shift from emphasizing government achievements (2024/early 2025) to strong oppositional, results-based criticism, demanding accountability from ministers and the improvement of government management standards in light of the Ministry of Defense scandals.

The politician's expertise is predominantly concentrated on national defense and security issues, ranging from NATO strategies and the specifics of defense expenditures (GDP percentages, budget figures) to civil defense, maritime security, and defense procurement policy. He consistently demonstrates a profound understanding of legislative and internal governmental procedures, being proficient in the internal rules of the Riigikogu (Parliament), state secret regulations, and specific legislation (such as the Income Tax Act and the Weapons Act). To support his arguments, the speaker authoritatively utilizes specific data, statistics (PPA callouts/incidents, surveys), and historical references (Meri's diplomacy, the Forselius Seminar), which demonstrates thorough preparation and mastery of detail. In addition to security, he possesses specific knowledge of tax policy, the history of education reforms, and regional infrastructure projects.

The politician’s rhetorical style in the Riigikogu chamber is formal and detailed, yet its substance is overwhelmingly combative, critical, and pressing, particularly on matters of security and government inaction. He consistently balances logical argumentation (statistics, historical references, procedural details) with strong emotional and moral appeals, frequently emphasizing an existential threat narrative. The style is marked by sharp polemics, a demanding insistence on accountability, and the frequent deployment of irony, sarcasm, and colorful, labeling expressions (e.g., "troll," "populist," "having run under the bar" [meaning failed to meet standards]) to attack opponents.

The politician's pattern of activity in the Riigikogu is exceptionally active and continuous, focusing on both strategic debates and detailed legislative oversight. He/She is systematically involved in the work of the National Defence Committee, serving as a rapporteur there and initiating bills that require extensive preparatory work, which demonstrates a deep commitment to lawmaking. In addition to regularly submitting questions during information hours regarding current crises, he/she also uses the parliamentary platform for intense procedural intervention and the critical monitoring of ongoing legislative processes.

The politician's oppositional stance is consistently sharp and wide-ranging, simultaneously targeting both right-wing opposition parties (Isamaa, EKRE) and the governing coalition (Reform Party, Eesti 200), as well as specific ministers. The criticism is multi-layered, focusing on substantive policy failures (especially concerning national defense funding and readiness) as well as procedural dishonesty, lack of leadership capacity, and violations of parliamentary (Riigikogu) procedure. The most intense attacks are aimed at EKRE and Isamaa, who are accused of political opportunism, posing security risks, and spreading Kremlin narratives, with any compromise on value-based issues being ruled out. In addition to domestic adversaries, Western major powers and NATO members are also criticized for their slowness and cynicism in supporting Ukraine.

The speaker favors broad, cross-party cooperation in strategic and security matters (especially national defense), remaining open to dialogue and inclusion within the National Defense Committee. They actively collaborate with colleagues (including Tiit Maran) on initiating draft legislation, widely involving ministry officials and various interest groups. Although the speaker acknowledges personal cooperation with ministers, their overall communication style with the government and the Riigikogu Board is often critical, demanding, and confrontational, focusing on holding the government accountable. Their readiness to compromise is selective, limited to reasonable procedural matters, while simultaneously strongly emphasizing the unified support of their parliamentary group (SDE) and sharply opposing populism.

A politician's focus is predominantly strategic, centering on national security and international relations (NATO, Baltic Sea geopolitics). Regional geography (e.g., Northeast and South Estonia) is frequently used to illustrate national defense issues and nationwide problems, while simultaneously stressing the necessity of cooperation with local governments as part of comprehensive national defense. A direct focus on regional development is rare, but it does surface in specific disputes (such as the Hiiumaa ferries) and in proposals aimed at decentralizing tax revenue to balance development outside of Tallinn and Harju County.

The politician’s economic outlook is dominated by the absolute prioritization of national defense, requiring funding of at least 3% of GDP and viewing it as an existential investment. To secure this funding, he advocates for the introduction of new taxes (such as a security tax) if needed. While he supports strict fiscal discipline and demands responsible financial management from the state, he is a strong proponent of social justice. He criticizes tax policies that favor the affluent and supports a social democratic approach to burden sharing. On the regulatory front, he backs reducing bureaucracy, particularly within the defense industry, to foster economic growth and international competitiveness. However, he remains critical of liberal labor reforms that erode worker confidence and result in underpayment.

The politician's social policy profile is dominated by comprehensive security and population defense, which are treated directly as the foundation for social stability and family confidence within society, emphasizing public safety, crisis preparedness, and the provision of vital services. Immigration is framed primarily as a national security threat (residence permit schemes, FSB) and a socio-economic risk, leading to support for restricting the voting rights of citizens from hostile countries in local elections. Regarding traditional social issues, he supports equal treatment (cohabitation/civil partnerships) and increasing youth participation (lowering the voting age), while considering education reform important. Overall, the profile emphasizes the need to restore public trust in the state and ensure community safety (for example, the issue of dangerous dogs), while keeping social debates within the bounds of legally valid concepts.

The politician's legislative activity focuses strongly on national defense and comprehensive security, as he is an active advocate for enshrining defense expenditures, supporting a security tax, and reducing the necessary regulation for developing the defense industry. He often acts as the initiator of bills (e.g., regulation of dangerous dogs, security screening of Riigikogu members) and as the leading rapporteur in the National Defense Committee, while also actively supporting legislative amendments related to education reform and traffic safety. He consistently emphasizes the legislative branch's oversight of the executive branch, sharply criticizing the Minister of Defense's delays in enforcing the implementing acts of the Arms Act and demanding strict adherence to the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules.