AI Profiling: Andrei Korobeinik

The political stance has remained consistently and sharply oppositional throughout the entire period under review, centering on government incompetence and the economic downturn. This stance is strongly underpinned by results-based criticism, citing Estonia's worst economic indicator in Europe. The core political struggle revolves around social justice, involving resolute opposition to regressive tax increases (such as the car tax and VAT) and demanding the introduction of progressive measures (like a solidarity tax on the banking sector) aimed at reducing inequality. While the economy and tax policy remain persistent themes, 2025 sees an added focus on institutional integrity and the strict adherence to democratic procedural rules within the Riigikogu (Parliament), with accusations leveled against the board for initiating a "political steamroller."

The politician's expertise is consistently and exceptionally strong in the field of economic and tax policy, supported by the detailed use of financial data (bank profits, budget deficit) and macroeconomic indicators (GDP, inflation), alongside continuous international comparison (Lithuania, Latvia, EU), particularly in the context of the bank tax and economic recession. A second significant area of authority is the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act, where they demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of procedural sections, the organization of committee work, and the procedural details of legislation drafting. Furthermore, they possess technical awareness regarding the development of the e-state, the taxation of digital services, and the implementation of artificial intelligence, utilizing specific details (e.g., application ratings, crypto regulation) in their critique of the state's administrative capacity.

The politician’s rhetorical style is consistently extremely combative, sharp, and confrontational, underscoring the urgency of the situation and the incompetence of his opponents. He juxtaposes logical appeals (economic data, procedural rules, constitutional references) with powerful emotional accusations regarding social injustice, while consistently defending vulnerable groups. The style is characterized by frequent irony, sarcasm, and vivid metaphors (e.g., "tax orgy," "demented squirrel," "collective Putin"), which lend a personally aggressive and penetrating tone to the formal parliamentary debate. The rhetoric is primarily aimed at accusing the coalition of lying and the Riigikogu board of violating procedural rules.

The politician's activity profile is exceptionally intensive and consistent, focusing almost entirely on the sittings of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) and the work of the Finance Committee, maintaining an active presence on multiple days every parliamentary month. His/her work encompasses both the initiation of substantive bills and interpellations (covering tax policy and social issues) and the continuous oversight of government activities. The speaker aggressively utilizes parliamentary procedural tools, repeatedly submitting detailed and procedural questions, challenging the management of the sitting, and demanding answers, which points to a systemic opposition tactic of obstructionism. This pattern underscores his/her role as a highly visible and vocal opposition leader who also engages in extensive scrutiny outside the chamber (e.g., appeals to the Chancellor of Justice).

The opposition's stance throughout the entire observed period has been intensely confrontational and uncompromising, directed primarily at the Reform Party-led government, Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, and specific ministers (e.g., Ligi). The criticism is wide-ranging, equally divided between policy-based issues (causing economic recession, unfair taxation, protecting banks) and procedural matters (violating parliamentary rules of procedure, employing "steamroller tactics," and the arbitrary actions of the Riigikogu Board). Coalition partners (Eesti 200, SDE) are consistently attacked on ethical grounds, accused of hypocrisy and acting as the Reform Party's "poodles," which signals a low willingness to compromise. The opposition repeatedly demands the government's resignation, directly linking the government's activities to the destruction of the nation's economy.

The speaker's cooperation style is clearly oppositional, focusing on strong intra-factional support and actively building alliances with other opposition parties (such as Isamaa and EKRE) through joint legislative proposals (e.g., the bank tax) and opposing government policy. Relations with the ruling coalition are predominantly antagonistic and confrontational, with a complete lack of readiness for compromise; instead, the aim is to pressure coalition partners (especially SDE and Eesti 200) and criticize their ideological flexibility. Rare moments of cooperation with the coalition are limited to consensus appointments or resolving procedural issues, while substantively, the focus remains on offering alternative solutions and challenging the government's actions in the Supreme Court.

The politician's focus is predominantly on national economic policy and extensive international comparisons (Lithuania, Scandinavia, the EU), but the regional dimension emerges through consistent criticism regarding regional inequality and the closure of services in rural areas. A central regional theme is the detrimental impact of the car tax on rural residents, with Pärnu County repeatedly used as an example of inadequate public transport and the necessity of owning a car for daily life. The positive regional focus is formed by major national infrastructure projects, such as Via Baltica and the Haapsalu railway, while Tallinn is often mentioned either as a favored region or as an example of local incompetence.

The politician's economic views are strongly progressive and geared towards social justice, centered on reducing inequality and stimulating the economy through state intervention. They consistently oppose regressive taxes (such as VAT, car tax, and the security tax) which disproportionately burden poorer and large families. Furthermore, tax breaks for the wealthy (like the abolition of the 'tax hump' or 'tax curve') are sharply criticized. The primary fiscal policy solutions proposed include taxing banks' excess profits (a bank tax), implementing a progressive income tax, and taxing large corporations (a digital tax). This revenue would be used to fund social programs and prevent the budget deficit from being covered at the expense of ordinary citizens. To stimulate economic growth, they advocate for state investments (infrastructure projects) and demand the optimization of the public sector and a reduction in the number of civil servants, attributing the long-term economic recession to the government's inaction and recent tax hikes.

The politician's social policy profile is predominantly focused on alleviating economic inequality and protecting vulnerable groups (pensioners, large families, people with disabilities) from government tax policies and benefit cuts. He/She repeatedly stresses the need for social justice and constitutionally mandated special care, sharply opposing the negative impact that taxes (such as the car tax or income tax starting from the first euro) would have on these groups. Public health topics are frequently raised, including reducing the number of drug-related deaths, improving the accessibility of mental health care, and addressing the issue of sick individuals attending work. Furthermore, the profile demands the increase and guarantee of social security benefits (e.g., subsistence allowance, health insurance, unemployment benefits), extending these protections to platform workers. The profile notably avoids traditional culture war issues (abortion, LGBTQ+, immigration), concentrating instead on matters of social protection, the rule of law, and reducing the administrative burden on citizens.

The speaker’s legislative focus is predominantly on financial and tax policy. He is a consistent initiator of opposition bills aimed at increasing revenue (bank tax, digital tax) and a fierce opponent of the government’s tax hikes (car tax) and austerity plans. He acts as an active opponent, utilizing Riigikogu procedural tools (motions to suspend and reject) to defend the Centre Party’s platform promises (e.g., lowering VAT on food). A significant and ongoing area of activity is also ensuring the integrity of the parliament’s organization of work and procedural rules, criticizing the Presidium’s actions and demanding transparency in lawmaking, especially regarding the detailed scrutiny of the budget and financial forecasts.