By Agendas: Eerik-Niiles Kross

The political focus is heavily directed toward supporting international democracy, particularly concerning Georgia's constitutional crisis and the state of democracy there, topics on which two Riigikogu (Parliamentary) statements were initiated. Domestically, attention has been drawn to the initiation of the draft bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, which is being presented as a value-based and political compromise. The speaker's position is one of initiation and support, emphasizing broad majority backing.

The political position expresses strong support for the constitutional amendment bill (536 SE), which regulates the voting rights of non-citizens in local elections. The speaker frames this decision as a historical step that concludes the transition period from occupation to independence and achieves "full democratic sovereignty." He emphasizes that this is a timely decision that will improve the Estonian state.

The speaker's position is strongly values-driven, emphasizing the 30-year continuity of Estonian foreign policy and the need to maintain optimism while defending the values of freedom, responsibility, and peace. He criticizes the West for its overly slow and insufficient response to Russian aggression. Furthermore, he sees the current crisis as a unique opportunity for Estonia to participate in shaping the new world order. He warns that Europe may no longer be able to bear the cost, which has become exorbitant.

The political position is strongly value-driven, emphasizing the conflict between the free world and the autocratic world, and the necessity of responding to autocratic trends in a timely manner. The speaker vigorously supports the European aspirations of the Georgian people and demands new free elections, opposing the pro-Russian course and systemic repression of Georgia’s ruling regime (Georgian Dream). He considers the de facto government of Georgia illegitimate, as the elections were neither free nor fair and do not reflect the true choices of the people.

The speaker strongly supports amending the constitution to restrict the voting rights of citizens of aggressor states (primarily Russia) in local elections by positively defining the electorate (citizens of Estonia, the EU, and NATO). The primary framework is value-based and security-driven, emphasizing the need to restore "legal peace" in society and protect Estonian statehood in the changed geopolitical situation. At the same time, based on the principle of legal certainty, he advocates retaining voting rights for persons with undetermined citizenship, recognizing this as a consequence of the historical decision of 1992.

The speaker adopts a strongly principled stance, supporting the Georgian people’s course toward the European Union and NATO (with 85% support) while opposing the Georgian government’s drift away from democracy. He deems it necessary to end the current lenient approach and demands specific punitive measures against the Georgian government (freezing aid, suspending visa-free travel, sanctions). This position is strongly aimed against the expansion of Russia's sphere of influence, viewing the Georgian government's actions as a copy of Moscow's tactics.

The political focus is heavily centered on the non-recognition of the results of the Russian Federation's presidential elections, grounded in a legal and value-based framework. It is stressed that the elections are illegitimate due to violations of the Russian constitution, specifically those that allowed Putin to run indefinitely. The stance is resolute, calling on the government to elaborate and implement a de jure non-recognition policy.

The political position strongly supports the Riigikogu statement, which offers a political assessment of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) as an institution that incites aggression and calls state borders into question. This viewpoint is value-based and security-focused, underscoring the necessity of responding to the MP’s radical *Russki Mir* ideology, which has been incorporated into Russia’s national strategic documents. The speaker believes that the state must inevitably issue a political assessment of an institution that openly incites war.

The political position centers on strong opposition to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, highlighting the forced deportation of children as a crime of genocide and a violation of international law. This stance is value-driven and legal in nature, emphasizing the primacy of human rights and international conventions (specifically the Genocide Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention). The speaker draws on historical parallels (the March Deportations) to underscore the emotional and political weight of the issue.