By Agendas: Marko Mihkelson

The speaker expresses strong and clear opposition to the Soviet regime and the modern Russian Federation, criticizing their historical and ongoing crimes. The critique is both moral and political, focusing specifically on genocide, occupation, and illegal annexation.

The main confrontation arose with colleague Urmas Reinsalu, who raised the question of omitting the provision regarding the denunciation of foreign treaties (Section 1, Point 50 of the draft bill). The opposition to Reinsalu's proposal was strong and was justified using arguments based on policy and constitutional order, claiming that his proposal violates the principle of separation of powers.

The main adversary is Russia, which is described as an aggressor seeking to restore its empire and an existential threat, and more broadly, the "authoritarian quartet" (China, North Korea, Iran). Criticism is also directed at the major Western European powers, who have disarmed and stubbornly deny the reality of war. The speaker sharply criticizes those who hope for a quick peace or are ready to yield to Russia's nuclear blackmail.

The opponents are those who either question the necessity of the declaration or justify the Georgian elections (referencing Mr. Grünthal and Poolamets). The criticism is principled and intense, comparing the opponents' viewpoints to those who defended the June 1940 elections, and labeling them "unbelievable" in the current security context. The opposition is also aimed at Georgia's illegitimate government and parliament, as well as the aggressive policy of the Russian Federation.

There is no controversy, as the speech focuses on unity and the condemnation of historical crimes. Indirect, yet strong, criticism is aimed at Russia as the perpetrator of these crimes and the aggressor, emphasizing the necessity of accountability.

There is no direct opposition or criticism concerning the current adversaries. While there is a mention of an earlier procedural impediment, where the then-President of the Republic was compelled not to promulgate the law, this is presented as a resolved historical issue.

The main opponents are critics of the bill, who are accused of forgetting the true scope of the war and Russia's objectives. The intensity of the criticism is high, equating opposition to the law with opposition to the Estonian state ("criticism against the Estonian state"). The opposition is aimed at a political decision, but is framed as a moral and security deficiency.

There is not enough data.

Direct criticism of opponents is absent, although reference is made to colleague Põlluaas’s question regarding the activities of partner countries. The main criticism is aimed at the Western World’s historically “very, very slow” reaction to Russian aggression since 2014.

There is no opposition. The speech focuses exclusively on supporting the draft bill and emphasizing the consensus achieved in the committee.

The main adversary is Russia, which is described as a nuclear state forcefully changing the world order, supported by China, Iran, and North Korea. Criticism is also directed at the strategic disarray spreading among the allies and isolationist sentiments in the USA. Separately, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is criticized for moving against the common position of the allies, noting the emergence of "Orbán fatigue."