By Plenary Sessions: Eerik-Niiles Kross

Direct confrontation with political opponents is not articulated in the speeches. However, upon the submission of the constitutional amendment bill, it was acknowledged that there are those in the Riigikogu who believe too little is being done, and those who believe too much is being done. One piece of criticism was directed at technical procedures and the lack of control over the control panel.

The speaker is tackling criticism aimed at the constitutional amendment, describing the objections (for example, that changes shouldn't be made, or that they are being made too quickly/slowly or by the wrong people) as historically identical and inevitable arguments. While acknowledging that the criticism has been loud, he dismisses it as low-intensity, pointing out that these arguments do not apply to the current amendment either.

Strong criticism is aimed at Russia's aggressive imperialism and the inaction of the West (especially the "old West"), which has pretended for too long that Russia was moving toward the rule of law. Separate criticism is leveled against European countries that have broken European unity for domestic political reasons. Furthermore, Trump’s team is viewed as a force that will finalize the dismantling of the world order.

The main confrontation is directed against Georgia's ruling regime ("Georgian Dream"), which is accused of pursuing an autocratic course, violating human rights, and siding with Russia. The criticism is intense, noting that substantive contacts with this party have been severed. The criticism from the domestic opposition (Anti) is aimed at the use of demagogic tactics and the introduction of off-topic culture wars, which are considered disruptive to meaningful debate.

The opposition's arguments are primarily addressed through legal and substantive objections, particularly concerning the retention of voting rights for stateless persons and the bill’s potential conflict with the principle of uniformity of elections. The speaker rejects arguments that link the revocation of voting rights to ideological screening or punishment. He acknowledges that the legitimate expectation to vote held by those whose rights are being removed (Russian citizens) is intended to be overridden.

The main criticism is directed at the Georgian government (Ivanishvili’s circle), which is accused of deviating from the democratic path, making anti-Western statements, and drifting into Russia’s sphere of influence. Criticism is also being extended to Western countries, including Estonia, for their previous excessive leniency toward Russia and Georgia. A compromise with the Georgian leadership is ruled out because diplomacy is no longer effective.

There is no direct confrontation or criticism aimed at political opponents, but the speaker is actively addressing questions concerning the role of e-elections and the practical impact of the decision. He refutes simplified comparisons between Estonian and Russian elections, emphasizing the violation of the constitution in Russia's case.

The primary criticism is directed at the institution of the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and its leader, Kirill, for having embraced the radical *russkiy mir* ideology. The criticism is both ideological and political, stressing that the church has been transformed into a tool for justifying aggression and genocide. Furthermore, the mutual exploitation between the Kremlin and the Patriarchate, which has resulted in a symbiosis of ideologies, is also being criticized.

The main adversary is the Russian Federation and the historical Soviet Union, who are directly accused of genocide crimes, the daily violation of international law, and the use of children for propaganda purposes. The criticism is extremely intense and focuses on political and legal-ethical violations, naming Russian officials (Lvova-Belova) as suspects in war crimes.