By Agendas: Eerik-Niiles Kross

The style is formal and procedural, focusing on the submission of draft legislation and addressing colleagues ("Dear colleagues!"). The tone is predominantly moderate and consensual, highlighting widespread support for the initiatives and the achievement of compromise. There is a brief emotional moment concerning a technical malfunction, during which frustration is expressed regarding the control panel acting on its own.

The rhetorical style is analytical, measured, and optimistic, emphasizing consensus and the peaceful progression of the process ("surprisingly calm"). The speaker employs historical parallels and references (Rein Taagepera, the 1992 referendum) to substantiate his position. He contrasts the critics' "sunset" label with his own "sunrise" metaphor, all while maintaining a formal and logical tone.

The style is academic and analytical, yet simultaneously compelling, using historical narrative and personal memories to forge an emotional connection. The speaker opens with the metaphor of a computer shutting down and the screen going blank to describe the current geopolitical situation. He balances the emphasis on the threat (Trump’s politics, Russian imperialism) with a call to remain calm and recognize positive opportunities within the crisis.

The style is serious, analytical, and persuasive, emphasizing the gravity of the situation and drawing historical parallels (the Stalin era, Maidan). The speaker employs a moral appeal, referring to the statement as "a friend's statement," but is simultaneously frank in evaluating the choices made by the Georgian Dream. When responding to criticism, the speaker is occasionally dismissive, labeling opponents' arguments as "whataboutism" and a distraction from the topic (culture wars).

The speaker's style is formal, measured, and analytical, focusing primarily on legal and historical arguments. He avoids emotional appeals, although he acknowledges the Estonian citizens' sense of justice, and repeatedly rejects accusations of implementing "punishment" or "thought control." The address is detailed and complex, containing numerous references to laws and legal principles, and he is prepared to answer numerous questions at length and in depth.

The tone of the speech is serious, urgent, and expressive of regret, highlighting personal feelings concerning the friendship with Georgia ("a very sad statement," "it is painful to process this statement"). Logical arguments and historical comparisons (Western mistakes in relations with Russia) are employed, along with metaphors (the relationship between former political prisoners, advice on furnishing an apartment) to clarify the situation. The style is formal yet persuasive, underscoring the failure of diplomacy and the necessity of escalation.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and explanatory, centering on the presentation of procedural details and legal arguments. A logical appeal is employed, drawing upon international documents and historical parallels (specifically, the Soviet occupation in Estonia) to substantiate the policy of non-recognition. The tone remains measured and goal-oriented, even when addressing questions raised by the audience.

The style of the speech is formal, analytical, and logical, focusing on refuting misconceptions and presenting detailed evidence (quotations from declarations and state documents). The tone is serious and businesslike, emphasizing the necessity of providing a political assessment while simultaneously calling upon the government to act reasonably. The speaker uses direct quotations to demonstrate the radical nature of the ideology (e.g., "holy war," "destroy all attempts to create universal hegemony in the world").

The rhetorical style is formal and deliberate, yet its content is emotionally heavy and urgent, designed to create discomfort among listeners and raise awareness of the gravity of the situation. To achieve maximum impact, the speaker relies on facts and international law, connecting these points with historical quotes (Himmler) and Estonia’s experience with deportations. The style remains balanced, beginning with factual evidence but concluding with a personal and emotional recollection (Ants Laaneots).