By Agendas: Alar Laneman

The cooperation approach is consensual and institutional, emphasizing the unanimous decision by the National Defence Committee regarding the conclusion of the bill’s first reading. Collaboration is carried out with the leadership of the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Forces, and broad international cooperation is also referenced (23 EU countries are contributing to the operation).

Cooperative, acknowledging the efforts of the Minister and the Ministry of Defense for the serious and adequate handling of the National Audit Office's findings. Refers to cooperation within the National Defense Committee.

Insufficient data.

The speaker emphasized the strong and unified support of the Reform Party's parliamentary group for the draft legislation, demonstrating effective internal cooperation within the party. A positive reference was made to "the good preceding speaker," suggesting collaboration among those supporting the bill. This decision aligns with the government's ongoing efforts to enhance national defense.

The collaborative approach is characterized by recognition and consultation; it involves complimenting the minister and requesting their sound advice for the successful execution of the forthcoming discussion. This signals a commitment to constructive dialogue and the sharing of expertise on sensitive political matters.

Thanks colleagues for their support and demonstrates openness to constructive criticism regarding the review of the list of missions. Emphasizes the need for a sensible approach and offers solutions in the event of procedural disagreements, showing readiness for discussion aimed at improving the work of the Riigikogu. Commends the approach taken by esteemed colleague Anti.

The cooperation style is consensual, given that the National Defence Committee unanimously decided to send the draft bill to the final vote. Furthermore, cooperation with the language editor and the bill's representatives regarding linguistic refinement is mentioned, which indicates a readiness for procedural cooperation.

The style of cooperation is consensual and institutional, emphasizing joint discussions between the National Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Cooperation was undertaken with Ministry of Defence officials, the Minister of Defence, and Defence Forces officers to gain an overview of the security situation. The committees’ decisions concerning the completion of the first reading of the draft legislation were made consensually.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of cooperation and synergy to achieve success under challenging circumstances. He sharply criticizes the failure of autonomous sectors to engage regional partners. This indicates a desire to see broader and deeper cooperation between state institutions and local interests.

The style of cooperation is open and constructive. The speaker begins with praise and presents their proposal in a suggestive manner, seeking the minister's consent and a shared understanding regarding national defense priorities ("do you agree with me").

The style of collaboration is supportive and appreciative, commending the minister for their continued policy direction and the comprehensiveness of the plan. The approach is constructive, offering recognition and seeking clarification regarding the concerns raised by the public debate.

There is insufficient data to assess cooperation or willingness to compromise. The remark is a formal question directed at the presenter, indicating participation in a structured discussion.

The style of cooperation demonstrates internal consistency, referencing the recent speech by colleague Ants Frosch. There is absolutely no indication of any inter-governmental or inter-party willingness to compromise with the minister.

The collaborative style is constructive, as the necessity of the statement's content is supported ("the statement itself is necessary, I agree with that"). Solutions are sought through dialogue to mitigate risks associated with timing, specifically by asking the presenter about the planning process.

There are no details regarding cooperation; the focus is on directly questioning the minister and challenging their viewpoints.

Not enough data

In this discussion, the speaker’s style is predominantly confrontational, focusing on highlighting the shortcomings of the draft bill. He supportively cites the position of "good colleague Siim" regarding the importance of trust, which demonstrates selective principled cooperation with like-minded colleagues. There are no references to a willingness to compromise or broad-based cooperation concerning the draft bill.

The speaker begins by expressing sympathy toward the minister ("It is commendable"), but then poses a sharp, politically loaded question that points to the need for the minister's response and explanations. Direct cooperation or compromise is not mentioned.

The cooperative approach emphasizes Estonia's leadership role on the international stage, pointing to the necessity of refreshing the attitudes of allies and leveraging previous successful experience in reforming NATO defense planning. Domestic cooperation with other political parties is not mentioned, but a change in approach is demanded from the government.

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 speaker appreciates the substantive discussion that took place during the Defense Committee's away session with the Minister and ministry staff, noting that the discussion was constructive. He is seeking opportunities for cooperation and synergy across various sectors to find common solutions for alleviating the concerns of reservists.

The speaker is directly requesting the support of colleagues for their specific bill and proposal, stressing the necessity of finding a common solution. This indicates a desire to achieve consensus specifically regarding the proposed rate of 19.4%.

The speaker referenced the question posed by their colleague in a supportive manner, demonstrating cooperation within the faction. There is no evidence of cross-party collaboration or a willingness to compromise.