By Months: Alar Laneman
Total Months: 10
Fully Profiled: 10
11.2025
2 Speeches
The opposition is aimed at colleagues who question the constitutionality of the draft bill or comment on the behavior of other parliamentarians (head shaking). Speaker 2 refutes the notion that a company-sized unit holds significant military importance and criticizes the short-sightedness evident in security planning. The criticism is directed at political viewpoints and procedural conduct, not at a personal level.
09.2025
3 Speeches
There is no direct confrontation. The speaker merely contextualizes the findings of the National Audit Office, prioritizing warfighting capability over accounting details, but acknowledges the existence of problems and the ministry's work in resolving them.
05.2025
1 Speeches
The direct criticism is aimed at the eastern neighbor (the aggressor state), which uses landmines in the aggressive war in Ukraine, despite international agreements. Indirectly, the criticism targets those who oppose the use of landmines under the banner of a "fight for peace," suggesting they harbor a hidden political agenda.
04.2025
1 Speeches
The criticism is aimed at the low quality of the parliamentary debate, which threatens to turn the issue into a "laughing stock." It is also hinted that some of the colleagues' questions were not "well-intentioned," but direct opponents or political groupings are not named.
12.2024
5 Speeches
He opposes those who sow doubts about the funding of Estonia's defense capabilities and advocate for isolationism. He also criticizes those who use unlikely assumptions for scaremongering, and even links certain criticisms (regarding resistance to Russian aggression in Ukraine) to doubts about Estonian independence itself. Furthermore, he rejects accusations of malicious intent regarding legislative procedures.
11.2024
1 Speeches
No data available
09.2024
4 Speeches
The direct criticism targets previous national defense concepts (specifically, "the damage inflicted by affordable national defense"). Furthermore, the author criticizes the procedural aspect of defense planning, noting that regional considerations have been insufficiently addressed. The criticism is based on policy and procedure, not personal, and is intended to remedy systemic deficiencies.
05.2024
4 Speeches
The speaker holds a strong oppositional stance, primarily criticizing the minister responsible for education and culture. The criticism targets both the substance of the policy (specifically, neglect concerning the Estonian language) and the personal level, calling into question the minister's sincerity and identifying their special relationship with the Russian language as the root cause of the issues. The timing and planning of the government's public statements are also criticized.
04.2024
16 Speeches
The main opponents are the government and the defenders of the bills, who are criticized for their political priorities (prioritizing the green transition over defense) and a lack of procedural transparency. The criticism is intense, accusing the opponents of subjectivity (specifically, assessing the "insincerity" of proposed amendments) and implementing a "Putin-like approach" concerning e-voting. The government is also criticized for its cavalier attitude towards breaking the promises it has made.
01.2024
5 Speeches
The opposition is directed at representatives of the executive power and rapporteurs, criticizing the substantive quality and speed of their answers (e.g., calling the response poor and lacking substance). The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, concerning both national defense topics and the criteria used for fast-tracking draft legislation. It also indirectly criticizes the communication of the Head of the Rescue Board regarding civil defense issues.