By Plenary Sessions: Eerik-Niiles Kross

The rhetorical style is formal, substantive, and procedural, focusing on the submission of draft legislation and addressing colleagues. The tone is mostly positive and geared toward cooperation, highlighting the "unusually good compromise" achieved in the case of the constitutional amendment bill. There is also a brief, specific complaint regarding technical issues (the control panel operating independently).

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and historically grounded. The speaker makes extensive use of historical comparisons to de-escalate the acuteness of the current debate, noting that the arguments have been surprisingly calm. The tone is generally optimistic and slightly grandiloquent, as he declares the change to be the conclusion of the transition period.

The style is formal, intellectual, and simultaneously incisive, utilizing numerous historical references and anecdotes (e.g., Putin leaving the hall). The speaker balances pessimistic assessments regarding Western inaction with an appeal to maintain Estonian optimism and composure during the crisis. Strong metaphors are used (e.g., "computer shutdown," "the elephant in the room").

The tone is serious, straightforward, and at times sharp, highlighting the urgency and gravity of the situation. The speaker employs both logical arguments (citing facts and international reports) and emotional descriptions (such as the torture of political prisoners or recollections of the Stalin era). When responding to questions, the speaker remains resolute, dismissing demagogic maneuvers and irrelevant culture war topics.

The style of the address is formal, analytical, and thoroughly explanatory, focusing on the historical and legal justification of the draft bill. Emphasis is placed on logical and legal arguments, such as the principle of legal certainty and the restoration of legal peace, while avoiding emotional punitive rhetoric. The speaker is candid, acknowledging the draft bill’s potential legal contradictions and risks.

The style is serious, analytical, and concerned, incorporating both personal feelings (related to the events of 2008) and geopolitical logic. Historical parallels and metaphors are used (such as the relationship between former political prisoners, and the story of furnishing an apartment) to explain the deterioration of relations between Georgia and the West. It is emphasized that diplomacy has failed and that counter-escalation is necessary, based on the principle that "the worse, the better."

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and informative, focusing on clarifying the draft's procedure and its legal substance. Logical argumentation is utilized, highlighting international precedents and resolutions to substantiate the uniqueness and necessity of Estonia's position. The tone is serious and businesslike, avoiding emotional appeals.

The speech is analytical, explanatory, and serious in tone, focusing on refuting misconceptions and presenting facts. The style is formal and logical, relying heavily on citing documents and historical background to justify the necessity of a political assessment. Avoiding emotional appeals, the legal and secular viewpoint is emphasized.

The rhetorical style is formal and measured, balancing the emotionally difficult subject matter with legal facts and citations to be "most impactful." The speaker uses historical references (Himmler, the March Deportation, Ants Laaneots) and documented cases (the Amnesty International report) to emphasize the gravity of the topic and establish a personal connection. The tone is serious and urgent, acknowledging that delivering the speech will dampen the audience's spirits, but asserting that this serves a necessary objective.