By Months: Raimond Kaljulaid

The main opponent is the EKRE faction (including Mart Helme and Varro Vooglaid), who stand accused of both violating the Riigikogu's rules of procedure and engaging in activities contrary to Estonia's security interests. The criticism is extremely intense, specifically accusing the opponents of undermining NATO cooperation and disseminating Kremlin narratives.

The primary opponents are the Isamaa Party, specifically Urmas Reinsalu and Helir-Valdor Seeder. The criticism itself is multi-faceted: political (Isamaa’s draft legislation runs contrary to their own party platform), procedural (stalling tactics, poorly prepared bills), and personal (a perceived lack of courage or ‘backbone,’ and past schemes). He dismisses Isamaa’s proposed amendments and accusations outright, ruling out any possibility of compromise regarding the specific method of constitutional alteration that Isamaa has put forward.

He sharply criticizes the political opposition, labeling their stance on defense spending and taxes as populist and dishonest. Furthermore, he criticizes the presiding officer of the Riigikogu session for failing to maintain order, citing violations of the house and procedural rules. He demands that the officer either fulfill his duties or submit a letter of resignation so that a new, effective leader can be elected.

The opposition's stance is sharp, accusing Isamaa and EKRE (Urmas Reinsalu, Arvo Aller) of populism and avoiding substantive work in the National Defense Committee. The criticism is primarily procedural and ethical in nature, stressing that the opposition failed to submit amendments on time, instead only showing up at the very end "to nitpick." He rejects the opposition's arguments regarding increased bureaucracy in light of the comprehensive security law.

The primary adversaries are Isamaa (Urmas Reinsalu, H. Seeder) and EKRE (Martin Helme, Moonika Helme). The criticism is extremely intense and personal, focusing on political opportunism, a lack of values, and ties to corruption (the residence permit business) and security risks (FSB agents).

The opposition is aimed more at the technical inadequacy of the draft legislation (Mr. Vooglaid's bill) than at the substantive goal itself, viewing the proposed solution as too small for a global problem. He also criticizes the previous government's actions regarding the unequal and undignified treatment of registered partners. The criticism is primarily policy- and procedure-based, not personal.

The opposition is sharply criticized, accused of turning the substantive debate into an election campaign (in light of the upcoming European elections). The arguments put forth by opponents regarding the education reform are dismissed as implausible and lacking any real underlying issues that would justify the minister's removal.

The criticism is primarily aimed at NATO member states (two-thirds) that are failing to meet the 2% defense spending target stipulated by Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The weakness and sluggishness of the European Union are also criticized (in reference to the execution of the one million shell agreement), along with the unreasonable 639-day delay in Sweden's accession to NATO.