By Agendas: Marko Mihkelson

The speech is largely formal, courteous, and procedural, repeatedly employing the salutations, "Esteemed Speaker/Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu! Dear colleagues!" When addressing changes to delegations, the tone remains neutral and administrative. However, when discussing the topic of the Crimean Tatars, the tone shifts to become morally charged and serious, highlighting the suffering and the genocidal scale of the crimes.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, factual, and procedural, focusing on the detailed description of the procedural process and legal arguments. The tone is measured and, in the second address, defensively explanatory in response to the criticism raised by Urmas Reinsalu. The appeals are exclusively logical, relying on explanatory memoranda, committee voting results, and constitutional provisions.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and highly cautionary, emphasizing the existential nature of the threat facing the West and the necessity of avoiding strategic errors. Both logical arguments (the inadequacy of defense spending) and historical narratives (Churchill, Pearl Harbor) are employed to support the critique of Western inaction. The overall tone is urgent, stressing that the defeat of the collective West is "only a matter of time" if no action is taken.

The rhetorical style is formal and detailed, particularly when describing procedures, but becomes emotionally charged and urgent when addressing the situation in Georgia and Russian imperialism. Historical comparisons are utilized (the 1940 June elections in Estonia, the 1921 Soviet invasion of Georgia), and the critical importance of international support is emphasized. The tone is persuasive and analytical, referencing documented incidents and analyses.

The rhetorical style is serious, formal, and principled, employing strong moral appeals (e.g., "Impunity must not be allowed to triumph"). The address is aimed at achieving consensus and stresses the necessity of action and setting an example for other parliaments. Emotional and logical arguments are balanced, emphasizing both ensuring the minimum necessary for victims and establishing a legal framework.

The style is formal, substantive, and procedural, particularly when communicating commission decisions, emphasizing consensus-based and rational solutions. The tone is explanatory and appreciative, referring to the topic as "very important" and the previous decision as "a very good decision." The appeals are primarily logical, grounded in the committee's work and the long-term discussion of the draft bill.

The rhetorical style is urgent and highly persuasive, stressing the critical importance of the decision for Estonian security and as an international precedent. It employs both emotional appeals (referencing genocide and the survival of the state) and logical justification (citing the work of the Constitutional Committee and the expectations of allies). The address is formal, resolute, and utilizes powerful contrasts (for instance, labeling Putin an autocrat).

The discourse is formal, procedural, and informative, characteristic of the style of a commission rapporteur. The emphasis is placed on logical and factual reporting, detailing meetings, decisions, and the data presented. Emotional or rhetorical appeals are absent; the style remains neutral and objective.

The rhetorical style is formal, supportive, and insistent, emphasizing the bill's importance and the necessity of avoiding delays in its passage. Logical arguments are employed concerning international precedent and the imposition of strategic costs on Russia. The tone is optimistic regarding the positive outcome of the bill and Estonia's leading role.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, substantive, and procedural, focusing on the detailed reporting of the work of the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee. The discourse is logic-based, avoiding emotional appeals and emphasizing factual information (dates, the number of questions, consensus decisions). The tone is neutral and informative.

The style is urgent, resolute, and formal, stressing the existential threat and the necessity of acknowledging the reality of a "new world war." It employs both emotional appeals (citing Ukrainian heroes) and strategic analysis to persuade listeners of the need for a unified and active victory strategy from the West. A warning is issued against the political hesitation currently spreading among the allies.