By Agendas: Alar Laneman

The political position is strongly alliance- and security-based, supporting Estonia's continuous contribution to the European Union military operation EUNAVFOR Med/Irini. The stance is policy-driven, emphasizing the fulfillment of allied obligations and the increase of personnel in 2026 to enforce the UN arms embargo and prevent illegal oil exports. Support for the operation is strong and aimed at ensuring international stability.

The political focus is on national defense and warfighting capability, which are considered more important than bureaucratic details (e.g., accounting). It adopts a results-based approach, stressing that during wartime, only the capability of the force matters. It raises the critical strategic question of replacing the unreceived American aid.

The political focus is directed toward the procedural correctness of the Riigikogu session and scrutinizing the actions of the presiding officer. The speaker is demanding a clear answer as to whether the incident that occurred in parliament constituted a strike, thereby calling into question the previous official stance. This position is strongly aimed at ensuring transparency in the parliament’s rules of procedure and its overall management.

The political focus is squarely on national defense and security, with strong support for Bill 642 SE, which concerns withdrawal from the Anti-Personnel Mine Convention. This decision is justified by the existential threat and the necessity for a small state to employ every available means, thereby highlighting the pragmatic and bold character of the policy. The speaker considers this step a logical component of the government's existing efforts to develop national defense capabilities.

The political position is aimed at maximizing potential within society, utilizing the analogy of a "system of communicating vessels," which points toward a holistic approach to policy. The speaker emphasizes the urgent need to discuss the broader inclusion of women in national defense, viewing this as a crucial topic. He/She indirectly criticizes the quality of the ongoing debate, calling parts of it "peculiar."

The political position strongly supports Estonia's active international engagement and participation in peacekeeping missions, stressing that the state must be a subject, not an object. This stance is value-driven, emphasizing responsibility for global events and adhering to the fundamental security principle of "never alone." The speaker rejects an isolationist attitude as incompatible with an independent Estonian state.

The political position constitutes strong support for Estonia's continued contribution to the European Union military operation EUNAVFOR Med/Irini, involving the deployment of up to three servicemen. This stance is policy- and procedure-centric, emphasizing the fulfillment of international obligations and the standardization of the wording used in draft legislation. Support for the operation is robust and consensual, with no objections raised.

The political focus centers on fulfilling international allied obligations within the European Union. The speaker strongly supports Estonia's contribution to Operation EUNAVFOR Med/Irini, emphasizing its continuity and the adherence to commitments arising from EU membership. This stance is rooted in policy and commitment, aiming to ensure security in the Mediterranean region.

The political emphasis is placed on the necessity of cooperation and synergy in national development, especially for achieving success under constrained circumstances. The speaker sharply criticizes the weak consideration of regional aspects within autonomous sectors, such as national defense planning. The primary concern revolves around the regional impact of political decisions and ensuring crisis preparedness. The political framework tends to focus more on deficiencies in performance and policy implementation.

The political stance strongly focuses on national security and comprehensive national defense. The speaker supports the structured work of the Minister of the Interior but urgently insists that preparing the state for war be added as a priority activity to the action plans for internal security and cohesive society. The position is aimed at improving policy implementation (performance-driven) to prevent critical activities from being overlooked.

The political stance is strongly supportive of the current direction of national defense, recognizing the need to continue extraordinary financial injections to rectify the damage caused by the previous concept of "affordable defense." Defense is viewed as the paramount objective, with emphasis placed on the importance of air defense and allied relations. This position is clearly policy-driven and results-oriented.

The most crucial topic is the foundation of democracy and the integrity of elections, which is heavily addressed within the context of national defense and hybrid warfare. This stance is value-based, emphasizing that a lack of confidence in e-voting could erode the state's fundamental pillars and its will to defend itself. The political focus is aimed at guaranteeing national security through trustworthy democratic processes.

The political stance is sharply critical of the actions taken by the Minister of Education and Research. This criticism centers on a value-based opposition to what is perceived as insufficient protection of the Estonian language and culture within educational policy. The primary concern is the drop in the quality of Estonian-language education, which has emerged during the process of guaranteeing the rights of Russian-speaking children. This position is forcefully articulated, casting doubt on the minister's sincerity and commitment to their official duties.

The political position is moderately supportive of the need for the Riigikogu statement, which involves condemning an institution that supports Russian aggression. At the same time, concern is voiced regarding the potential negative impact of the statement's timing on the reputation of the Estonian state among those believers who share the state's views regarding the war in Ukraine. In formulating this position, both the political necessity (the content of the statement) and the assessment of social consequences are crucial.

The political position is strongly value-based, focusing on the moral and social importance of fulfilling promises. The speaker opposes the government’s attitude that promises can be altered when circumstances change, viewing this as a major risk to social cohesion. The platform is strongly oppositional, accusing the government of failing to recognize the significance of broken promises.

The political stance is strongly opposed to the justifications presented for increasing state levies. The speaker rejects the notion that government actions constitute "benefits" or "goods," emphasizing instead that these are necessary processes required for the state to function. The position is primarily policy- and performance-driven, casting doubt on the methodology used for calculating these costs.

The political position is strongly opposed to Draft Bill 344 SE, which is viewed as a "very bad" and dangerous development that paves the way for negative consequences. This stance is value-based, stressing that the primary objective of elections is to ensure the clear expression of the will of the citizenry, not mere convenience. The speaker directly connects the lack of electoral credibility with negative governing outcomes, such as "less democracy and more taxes."

The political stance strongly focuses on the national priority of high-performance sports and the setting of ambitious goals. The speaker criticizes the government's potential underestimation of this field, emphasizing that athletic success is tied to national pride, the will to defend the country, and influencing the sporting behavior of the populace. The position is results-oriented and demands a more active role from the state.

The political stance is heavily focused on the reassessment of national priorities, demanding that national defense be established as the single existential and paramount task given the looming threat of war. All other issues, such as the green transition and budgetary balance, should be temporarily deferred, as their postponement is not critical. This position is strongly rooted in values and outcomes, underscoring the absolute primacy of security.

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 political focus lies on national defense and security readiness, emphasizing the need for sufficient military capabilities to repel a potential attack by the Russian Federation in the short term, within a 2–3-year timeframe. This is a strongly results-based position that demands rapid action and the assessment of readiness. Furthermore, the importance of a broad security concept is stressed, linking the will to defend with the existence of civil defense and shelter options.

The most important topic is the adjustment of the VAT rate, with the speaker strongly advocating for the specific rate of 19.4%. This stance is geared toward providing a politically oriented solution, referencing the Riigikogu's efforts to determine the "correct percentage." The viewpoint is clearly policy-driven and centered on a specific numerical solution.

The political position is critical and substantive, focusing on the poor quality of the official's response. The speaker strongly emphasizes the importance of comprehensive national defense issues, directly linking them to the bill currently under discussion. The stance is strongly procedural and substantive, demanding an improvement in the quality of the responses provided.