Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The most characteristic feature is the support shown to the opposition regarding the funding of Rail Baltic and the general austerity policy. The speaker is critical of the government's plans, stressing that increasing costs at the expense of taxpayers while simultaneously needing to finance major investments is devastating. He/She emphasizes the need for risk analysis and cooperation assessments, and has somewhat more forcefully directed attention to the actual cost and benefit of the projects. The framing is more policy-making oriented (focusing on the efficiency and transparency of state expenditures) rather than being based on aid or teamwork.

Demonstrates a strong knowledge- and facts-based approach: refers to the assessment of the National Audit Office (1.8 billion) and the calculations of the Latvian investigation committee, and emphasizes the lack of a contingency plan and risk analysis within the Ministry of Climate. Uses statistical and economic arguments (costs, maintenance costs, comparing traffic needs to Elron prices). Presents consistent references to official sources and calculations.

A vocal analytical and critical style, incorporating questions and references to data; it employs historical or humorous remarks (e.g., the “Tallinn-Häädemeeste express”) and focuses attention on provisioning and risks. The tone is formal, but occasionally sharply critical, blending emotional rhetoric with fact-based arguments. The second address is extremely cautionary and prudent, stressing that the Prime Minister must not use divisive rhetoric concerning the Kremlin in this context; the tonality shifts to admonishing and morally demanding.

He frames himself as an actively participating speaker on the topic of Rail Baltic; he speaks at the same plenary session (16.05.2025) and refers to the sitting of the special anti-corruption committee and the assessments of the National Audit Office. He regularly notes that his position is cohesive and dependent on the government's actions, utilizing official sources to clarify his viewpoints. He demonstrates continued involvement in discussions on the same topic through two separate interventions.

The main theme of the political stance is the criticism of the government's Rail Baltic funding: it is critical and stresses that the cost is excessive and cooperation with Latvia is not assured. He emphasizes the necessity of risk analysis and funding transparency, pointing out that the financing and infrastructure situation is potentially detrimental if a solid financial model is lacking. The author of the second address adds that the parallel drawn with the Kremlin in the Prime Minister's speech was ineffective and inappropriate; there is also criticism regarding personal remarks.

Locally, it demonstrates a readiness to cooperate with the Latvian partner and stresses the necessity of ensuring improved collaboration and synchronizing timelines. Furthermore, there is a call to avoid divisive rhetoric and instead focus on constructive dialogue. This suggests a constructive, yet cautious approach to cooperation and dialogue.

The focus is primarily at the national level, directing critical scrutiny towards the funding of Rail Baltic, but it also incorporates the international dimension concerning Latvia’s participation and cooperation. The Tallinn–Latvia border and Latvia’s involvement are mentioned, which points to a regional and international aspect, rather than just local roads.

The economic approach is centered on emphasizing fiscal discipline and transparency in investments: it criticizes tax hikes and permanent tax liabilities, while simultaneously demonstrating that major infrastructure funding cannot be realized without a secure and clearly justified financing model. The stance remains skeptical toward increased spending, underscoring the necessity of controlling risks and anticipated liabilities.

Data is missing: specific stances on social issues (abortion, LGBTQ+, immigration, gun control, etc.) are not present. Not enough data.

The legislative focus appears to be centered on the oversight and transparency of Rail Baltic funding. This includes references to a session of the special anti-corruption committee and assessments from the National Audit Office. Emphasis is also placed on the necessity of conducting risk analysis and synchronizing cooperation. While specific bills or plans have not been directly cited, the overall concentration remains on criticizing government policy and ensuring financial transparency.