AI Profiling: Leo Kunnas

The political stance is extremely strong and consistently oppositional, with a primary focus on national defense and security, demanding a rapid and massive increase in defense spending (up to 4.5% of GDP) and the elimination of strategic shortcomings (such as indirect fire capability, development of the defense industry, and denunciation of the Ottawa Convention). Other key issues include the demographic crisis, the solution for which involves supporting the restriction of immigration and the curtailment of voting rights for Russian citizens on security grounds, and the revitalization of the economy through tax cuts, contrasting sharply with the government's tax hikes. Its positions are predominantly strategy- and results-based, sharply criticizing the government's quality of governance and economic performance, but also include strong value-based elements (e.g., anti-abortion stance, protection of language, and capacity for integration).

The politician’s expertise is exceptionally deep and consistent in the fields of national defense and military strategy, covering both capability development (engineer capabilities, indirect fire, mine warfare) and detailed planning for personnel, logistics, and financing. He constantly demonstrates his competence using technical military terminology (e.g., HIMARS, J1/G1, Mini Harop) and specific numerical data (GDP percentages, troop strengths, inflation rates), often providing operational-level analysis and referencing historical and international precedents. In addition to the defense sector, he possesses significant knowledge of economic and tax policy, internal security structures (PPA, civil defense), and complex legislative procedures, supporting his arguments with macroeconomic indicators and academic concepts.

The politician's rhetorical style is consistently formal, analytical, and substantive, relying overwhelmingly on logical arguments, data, and the explanation of technical details, which suggests a clear preference for rational policy analysis. The tone is persistently serious, critical, and urgent, particularly regarding security and national defense issues, where strategic necessity and immediacy are stressed, occasionally employing extremely concerned language ("catastrophe"). Although the speaker mostly avoids emotional appeals, they selectively deploy strong historical analogies (Nazi Germany, KGB, Stalin) and confrontational language to sharpen their criticism and underscore moral positions.

The politician is consistently and intensely active during Riigikogu sessions, speaking multiple days a week throughout most session months, and frequently requesting additional time to present arguments comprehensively. His pattern of activity is two-pronged: he systematically pursues legislative initiatives (draft bills) and exercises oversight of the government (interpellations/inquiries), while also being prepared to substitute for colleagues. A significant part of his schedule involves intensive and substantive work on the National Defense Committee. This work includes site visits (such as the Defence Forces Headquarters or a visit to the Internal Security Service, Kapo) and direct communication with ministry representatives, indicating thorough preparation and active engagement in fieldwork.

The politician's opposition activity is intense and systemic, primarily targeting the Government of the Republic, the Prime Minister, and the Ministry of Defence, but also encompassing long-term strategic failures of previous administrations (e.g., the "affordable national defense" doctrine). The criticism is predominantly policy, strategy, and structure-based, consistently focusing on national defense issues (insufficient funding, slow decision-making, failure to develop the defense industry) and the economy (tax hikes, budget methodology). He levels sharp accusations, questioning the government's capacity to resolve security problems and labeling their policies as economically foolish, while highlighting the diffusion of responsibility and management errors. Although direct personal criticism is rare, resistance to the government's strategic decisions and quality of leadership remains consistently high.

The politician’s collaboration style is highly pragmatic and results-oriented, particularly in the security and defense fields. Here, he stresses the need for consensus-based decisions both within the National Defense Committee and at the regional level (NATO, Baltic states). While he operates loyally according to the positions of his own faction (EKRE), he has demonstrated a significant readiness for cross-party cooperation, acknowledging and supporting colleagues from other factions (e.g., Parempoolsed) in moving forward with substantive and technical draft legislation. He favors consensus and recognizes the input of colleagues and officials in improving the quality of lawmaking, being prepared to accept even imperfect solutions if they help achieve a shared objective.

The politician's focus is predominantly on the national and international level, especially concerning issues of security and defense policy, leaving local government topics on the back burner. Specific domestic regional attention is rare, but it focuses on strategic border areas (Narva, Southern Estonia), with references always being linked either to illustrating security threats (border defense, mine-laying) or national policy (taxation, school network). A significant feature is the constant use of neighboring countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Finland) as regional reference points to criticize the actions of the Estonian government in the development of the defense industry and in fiscal policy. Domestic regional references (e.g., schools in Võru municipality, Narva border guard) are rather exceptions that serve a broader national argument.

The politician's economic outlook is dominated by the security priority, which justifies an aggressive increase in defense spending (up to 4–5.4% of GDP) and, if necessary, resorting to borrowing or implementing a permanent defense tax, thereby placing the achievement of budget balance at risk. Simultaneously, he advocates lowering the tax burden (VAT, income tax, excises) to stimulate the economy and improve competitiveness, and is sharply critical of tax hikes. Strategically, he supports economic nationalism within the defense industry, viewing domestic production (e.g., explosives) as a source of economic growth and tax revenue. Furthermore, he demands the restoration of gold reserves to ensure financial stability, expressing skepticism toward the fiat money system.

The politician's socio-political profile is overwhelmingly centered on security and the nation-state, prioritizing loyalty, internal defense, and crisis readiness over social issues. A core concern is the limit of Estonia's integration capacity and the preservation of its language and culture. Consequently, the politician calls for restricting immigration and revoking the voting rights of Russian citizens in local elections, strictly justifying these demands based on security risks and the absence of a loyalty obligation. The demographic situation is considered paramount, underpinned by a strong moral and pro-life stance on abortion. Conversely, civil liberties (such as access to weapons for reservists) are only permitted subject to rigorous background checks and proven loyalty to the constitutional order. Additionally, the politician actively engages with issues of historical memory, demanding the removal of communist legacy and the legitimate commemoration of those who fought against the Red Army.

The politician's legislative focus is predominantly aimed at strengthening national defense and internal security. This encompasses strategic planning (Vision 2045), the expansion of operational capabilities (intelligence, weapons for reservists), and regulations concerning vital services. He is a consistent initiator in both the defense and economic spheres (tax cuts) and a key proponent of implementing security-based restrictions on voting rights (the voting rights of Russian citizens in local elections). In addition to initiating legislation, he is also known as a meticulous opponent, sharply criticizing the security of e-voting, deficiencies in the state budget, and the government's fiscal policy, thereby actively fulfilling an oversight role.