By Plenary Sessions: Leo Kunnas

The rhetorical style is highly formal, factual, and procedural, focusing on the presentation of the draft bill and the reporting of the work conducted by the National Defence Committee. The tone is neutral and authoritative, relying on logical arguments, legal statutes, and consensus-based decisions, while avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is insistent, critical, and concerned, highlighting the failure and lack of benefit of current policy. Logical arguments and simple mathematical calculations regarding economic sustainability are employed, warning that the country will not withstand the defense spending marathon for long. The speech is formal yet emotionally charged, utilizing strong comparisons with Latvia and Lithuania.

The speaker's rhetorical style is formal, factual, and focused on clarification, addressing the session chair and the minister directly. Logical arguments and procedural facts are utilized to explain the current status of the legislation, while avoiding emotional appeals. The tone is neutral and informative.

The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and confrontational, employing pointed rhetorical questions to highlight the substantive failure of the reporting. The tone is formal and centers on logical inconsistency: the presentation addresses "completely different things" than the strategy itself. Logical argumentation, rather than emotional appeals, is utilized to call the value of the strategy into question.

The rhetorical style is formal, factual, and often insistent, particularly on national defense topics, emphasizing the urgency of the issues. In the role of the opposition, the tone is protestive and demanding, criticizing the government's inaction and the stalling of parliamentary inquiries. The appeals are primarily logical and policy-based, focusing on demanding specific solutions and timelines.