By Plenary Sessions: Alar Laneman

The rhetorical style is highly formal, informative, and procedural, making it suitable for introducing the draft bill to the plenary session. The tone is neutral and professional, focusing on logical arguments (alliance obligations) and summarizing the committee's work. Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed solely on facts and describing the procedure.

The style is analytical, factual, and contextualizing, employing a historical argument to underscore the priority of military readiness over bureaucracy. The tone is serious and constructive, while simultaneously voicing concern over a strategic gap. The address concludes with a direct and pointed question regarding future plans.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, presenting a question to the session chair for clarification. A logical appeal is used, referencing the previously given answer ("There are no strikes in the Riigikogu") and the observed events (taking a recess). The tone is demanding and inquisitive.

The style is serious, formal, and pressing, emphasizing that "special times require special decisions" and "the courage to make the right decisions." Logical arguments are employed, focusing on necessity and accountability, alongside metaphors, such as: "The gun is not to blame; the one who pulls the trigger is to blame."

The style is dignified and respectful, beginning by commending the minister for their calm and composed manner of responding. The speaker employs a logical appeal (logos), posing a question regarding how to ensure the integrity and practical relevance of the future discussion.

The style is formal, persuasive, and at times moralizing, blending logical arguments (the instrumental value of missions) with strong value-based appeals. Historical examples and cultural parallels (e.g., "talgud") are employed to clarify security issues. A warning is issued regarding the danger of good people remaining mere bystanders, and the practice of instilling fear through threats based on assumptions is criticized.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, substantive, and informative, concentrating on the neutral dissemination of the objectives of the legislative process and the operation. Logical appeals are employed, citing committee sessions, reviews by the General Staff of the Defense Forces, and consensus decisions.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the esteemed minister, but the content is critical and concerned. Specific examples (Nursipalu, Pärnu) are used to illustrate systemic shortcomings, emphasizing the logical argument regarding the necessity of cooperation.

The address is formal and respectful, beginning with praise for the Minister of the Interior concerning their structured work. The rhetorical style is advisory in tone, but includes an urgent warning regarding security risks, referencing the forecasts made by the Commander of the Defence Forces. The appeal is primarily logical and aimed at correcting the focus of the policy.

The style is formal and respectful, beginning with an acknowledgement of the session chair and the minister, and expressing gratitude for the presentation. It employs analytical language (e.g., "the plan is integral") and concludes with a specific, media-prompted question concerning the basis for the food procurement and the public reservations surrounding it.

The rhetorical style is serious, cautionary, and analytical, emphasizing the criticality of the situation ("trouble is not far off"). Logical argumentation is used, linking the foundations of democracy and national defense issues, and the question is presented in a formal and respectful tone.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet simultaneously sharp and deeply concerned, expressing significant worry about the future of the Estonian language and culture. References are made to media reports and statements found online to call into question the minister's sincerity and motives. The questions are geared toward demanding accountability and exposing potential negligence or indifference.

The rhetorical style is formal and inquisitive, addressing the session chair and the presenter respectfully. Logical argumentation is employed, focusing on the potential negative impact of the statement's timing on social cohesion. The tone is cautious and expresses concern, rather than being confrontational.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and logic-driven, employing strong analogies (e.g., comparing the PPA to a massage parlor) to discredit the opposing side's arguments. The tone is concerned and demanding, expressing dissatisfaction with the minister's "overly casual" attitude. The appeal targets both ethical obligation and the logical relationship between costs and revenues.

The rhetorical style is fiercely combative, critical, and insistent, describing the situation as "simultaneously sad and comical." Strong emotional appeals are employed on the themes of trust and state responsibility, combining them with logical arguments about the importance of purpose and quality. The speaker uses irony, direct, and occasionally condescending addresses toward opponents ("darlings"), and a provocative comparison to the Russian electoral system.

The style is formal and respectful (when addressing the minister), but the content is critical and questioning, seeking a clear answer regarding the state's ambitions. The speaker employs logical argumentation to justify the importance of their topic, listing the positive impacts of competitive sports on society.

The rhetorical style is urgent, serious, and cautionary, emphasizing the existential nature of the approaching threat. A vivid metaphor is employed (the family and a scoundrel with an axe behind the gate) to clarify priorities and generate emotional impact. The tone is formal, but it appeals to logic, stressing that the most important matters must be prioritized.

The tone is urgent, serious, and anxious, underscoring the gravity of the situation and the immediate threat posed by the eastern neighbor. The speaker employs powerful logical arguments, drawing upon practical examples (such as driving a car at 120 km/h while switching drivers) and historical errors (the PPA merger). The rhetoric is formal, centered on operational effectiveness and state accountability.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and emphatically factual, creating an urgent tone by referencing specific threat assessments and media coverage. The speaker employs a logical structure, presenting facts and expert assessments before posing the question, in order to underscore the importance of the subject matter.

The speaking style is formal and direct, addressing the session chair and colleagues. The speaker employs light irony or sympathy regarding the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) procedures, noting, for example, "it is extremely sympathetic how the Riigikogu is intensely searching for that correct percentage." The appeal itself is brief, focusing on presenting a specific legislative solution and requesting support for it.

The tone is formal, yet overtly critical and combative, explicitly deeming the response poor. The appeal itself is substantive and logical, centering on the quality of the reply and the criteria used for fast-tracking the draft legislation. The speaker employs direct assessments to underscore their profound disagreement.