By Plenary Sessions: Meelis Kiili

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, procedural, and informative. The speech provides an objective overview of the work of the National Defence Committee, focusing on facts, dates, and legislative steps. Emotional or persuasive appeals are absent; the goal is to accurately convey the course of the proceedings and the background information.

The rhetorical style is serious, direct, and at times confrontational, especially when addressing skeptics. It employs both logical arguments (possibility versus obligation) and emotional appeals (Estonia has no territory to cede). The argumentation is supported by historical wisdom (Sun Zi), emphasizing that the highest art of war is to win the war without fighting battles.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and appropriately urgent, emphasizing the real threat emanating from the eastern neighbor. The speaker uses logical argumentation, defining the problem and justifying the necessity of the draft law without emotional appeals. He employs a structured approach, asking and answering questions regarding the law's purpose and its timeliness.

The rhetorical style is highly formal and procedural, focusing on the details of the steering committee's work, specific dates, and consensus decisions. The tone is businesslike and logical, but underscores the urgent necessity for the rapid enforcement of the law due to the continuing damage to infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. Emotional appeals are not utilized; instead, the focus remains strictly on facts and legal justification.

The style is formal and analytical, employing a well-known quote (Endel Lippmaa) to underscore the ramifications of structural problems. The tone is critical yet solution-oriented, emphasizing the necessity of a swift and equitable resolution. The speaker poses questions regarding both legal accuracy and social inclusion.

The style is highly formal, procedural, and neutral, typical of a commission report presented before the plenary session. The speech is logical, avoiding emotional appeals and focusing on facts, procedural decisions, and deadlines.

The style is extremely formal, neutral, and strictly procedural, focusing on the precise reporting of facts and dates. The speaker employs a logical appeal, detailing the step-by-step handling of the draft bill and the committee's decisions. Emotional or personal appeals are entirely absent; the emphasis is placed on the transparent description of the legislative process.

The style is highly formal, informative, and procedural, fitting the role of a committee rapporteur. The speaker maintains a neutral and authoritative tone, focusing on the presentation of facts, dates, and procedural decisions. The rhetoric is primarily logical and grounded in institutional reporting.

The style is formal, respectful, and inquisitive, beginning by thanking the Minister for the substantive presentation. The address is logical and policy-focused, centering on the presentation of strategic comparisons and inquiring about ambitions. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is on a clear political orientation.

The style is formal, professional, and appreciative, particularly concerning colleagues and ministry personnel. The tone is methodical and logical, stressing the pursuit of solutions rather than compromises. The speaker employs moderately critical, yet constructive language when discussing the social maturity of the administrative domain's senior management, connecting this issue to the conceptualization of security risks.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and interrogative, directly addressing the manager and the presenter ("Respected Manager! Dear Presenter!"). The focus is on logical and procedural clarity, and emotional or narrative elements are absent.

The style is formal, detailed, and procedural, characteristic of a steering committee report. Although the intensity of the process is mentioned, emphasis is placed on the quality and consensus of the final outcome, utilizing logical and systematic argumentation. The final assessment is optimistic, noting that a "near-ideal" result was achieved thanks to systematic work.

The style is formal, respectful, and conceptual, employing strategic terminology and politely addressing both the chairperson and the presenter. The speaker relies on logical arguments, highlighting the crucial distinction between strategy and tactics. The address concludes with an impactful, authoritative paraphrase of Sun Tzu, underscoring the peril of lacking strategy.

The style is formal and analytical, beginning with polite addresses to the chairman and the rapporteur. The tone is concerned and urgent, focusing on the logical framing of the question regarding the existence of a contingency plan (Plan B) in connection with a critical security threat.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the Minister directly. The tone is analytical, balancing recognition of the initiative ("pleased to see") with serious concern regarding the prevention of measure misuse. The appeal is logical and focuses on a procedural matter.

The address is formal, analytical, and respectful, beginning by thanking the presenter for their substantive contribution. The style is logical and question-oriented, utilizing a structured security model to frame the issue. Instead of emotional appeals, the focus is placed on strategic and rational policy formulation.