By Plenary Sessions: Alar Laneman

The opposition's stance is aimed directly at the minister and the government, criticizing both specific policy justifications (state fees) and the government’s ethical approach to keeping its promises. The criticism is intense and accuses the government of carelessness, which erodes public trust. There is no sign of a willingness to compromise; instead, they are demanding the unconditional fulfillment of those promises.

Fierce opposition is aimed at the proponents of Draft Bill 344 and the governing coalition, who face criticism for both procedural flaws and their political decisions. Opponents are accused of disregarding threats and implementing an electoral management approach similar to Russia’s, labeling it a "Putin-style approach." The criticism is intense and uncompromising, particularly concerning the disregard for voter confidence.

The criticism targets the political focus of the government (specifically, the minister's report), which the speaker believes either leaves the ambitions for high-performance sports vague or actively underestimates them. The disagreement is moderate and based purely on policy, not personal animosity.

The criticism is directed at the government's prioritization, specifically for favoring the green transition and budget balance over national defense. The opposition is rooted in policy and resource allocation, stressing that current actions (e.g., aid to Ukraine, the purchase of ammunition) are too slow and insufficient.

The criticism is aimed at the current executive power and previous governments, who failed to adapt the border guard structure to the changed threat level. Specific criticism is leveled against the prioritization of the green transition over security, and an earlier decision to merge the border guard, which was based on the false premise of a partnership with Russia. The critique is policy- and procedure-based, highlighting a distinct lack of accountability.