Agenda Profile: Alar Laneman

The political stance focuses heavily on national security and territorial integrity, demanding the restoration of a militarized border guard as a separate agency. The speaker criticizes the current arrangement (cooperation between the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) and the Defense Forces) as insufficient given the changed threat environment, stressing the necessity of a comprehensive chain of functions, ranging from border surveillance to defense. This position is strongly policy- and value-driven, emphasizing that the defense of Estonia must commence immediately, right from the very first centimeter. The immediate security threat is prioritized, and this must take precedence over other activities that can afford to wait, such as the green transition.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in national defense planning, military capabilities, and the logistics of crisis management, stressing the necessity of an organized, equipped, and armed structure. Technical terms such as "capability development" are used, and examples (the Hamas attack in Israel, armored off-road vehicles) are provided, demonstrating an understanding of the operational situation. It is emphasized that resolving a crisis requires a single leading authority, rather than transferring command during the rapid progression of events.

The rhetorical style is pressing, serious, and highly logical, focusing on practical deficiencies and the immediate danger ("at the door"). Logical arguments and analogies (such as changing drivers while traveling 120 km/h) are employed to clarify governance issues. The speaker highlights Estonia's past successes (e-governance, mandatory military service, aid to Ukraine) to inspire colleagues towards new bold moves in the security sector.

Not enough data.

The primary criticism targets the current state governance arrangement (the cooperation between the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) and the Defence Forces), which is deemed organizationally inefficient and slow during a crisis. It also indirectly criticizes those who prioritize the "green transition" ahead of an immediate security threat, labeling the issues related to the green transition as pending. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, not personal, and emphasizes that responsibility rests with all authorities involved in leading the state.

The speaker stresses the importance of rallying colleagues and taking shared responsibility for solving the problem, pointing out that this is the duty of the Riigikogu. The need to disseminate and share this security message with European partners is also emphasized, referencing Estonia’s previous successful leadership in NATO defense planning. Openness to compromise is not addressed; instead, the emphasis is placed on the solution being within reach and needing immediate action.

The focus is clearly on national security (the inviolability of Estonian territory) and international examples (Ukraine’s wartime experience, the failure of the Israeli border guard, and the declaration of NATO as an enemy). The organizational structure of the Finnish and Latvian border guards is cited as a model. Local or regional economic or social issues are not addressed.

The economic stance is tied to radical cost prioritization, demanding that large investments related to the green transition and foregone revenue (e.g., 1.5 billion euros per year) should be redirected or postponed to ensure immediate security. It is emphasized that the immediate threat must be an economic priority, as retaking the territory would cost significantly more in human lives and other respects.

Not enough data.

The main legislative focus is the initiation and support of the Riigikogu Draft Resolution (274 OE), the purpose of which is to obligate the government to prepare for and restore the militarized border guard as a separate agency. This is a major organizational and national defense priority intended to ensure that Estonia’s defense operations are accelerated and more successful.