By Plenary Sessions: Marko Mihkelson

The primary opposition is directed against the Russian Federation and the former Soviet regime, strongly criticizing the illegal annexation of Crimea and crimes of genocidal proportions against the Crimean Tatars. The criticism is intense and focuses on human rights violations and the disregard for international law.

The speaker is responding directly to a question raised by colleague Urmas Reinsalu regarding the exclusion of the provision for the denunciation of the agreement from the draft bill. The opposition to Reinsalu’s proposal is legally justified, citing the principle of the separation of powers and the constitutional provisions that assign the implementation of foreign policy to the executive branch. The opposition was firm, as the committee found that there was no need to support the proposed amendment.

The main adversary is Russia, which is described as an aggressor, a dictatorship, and an existential threat attempting to restore its empire. Criticism is also directed at the great powers of Western Europe, which have disarmed for decades and fail to invest sufficiently in defense, as well as those who cling to the illusion of peace at any cost.

The primary confrontation targets Russian imperialism and influence operations, which are viewed as a threat to the entire region. Domestically, he criticizes those colleagues (specifically naming Mr. Grünthal and Poolamets) who question the necessity of the statement or attempt to justify the falsification of the Georgian elections, deeming such an attitude unnatural yet credible.

The main opposing force is Russia, which is described as the initiator of a war of aggression and the perpetrator of crimes against the Ukrainian people. Criticism is aimed at the impunity of those who committed historical and current crimes, demanding genuine accountability.

There is no direct confrontation or criticism aimed at the opponents. The only thing mentioned is a previous legislative failure, where the then-President of the Republic was forced not to promulgate the law, but this is used to highlight the success of the current solution.

Opponents are sharply criticized, with the criticism of the bill being labeled as criticism of the Estonian state itself. The criticism is aimed at those who question the validity or constitutionality of the bill, despite the Constitutional Committee having completed thorough work. Furthermore, opponents are reproached for forgetting Russia’s true objectives.

The speaker does not directly criticize any domestic counterpart, but neutrally mentions the question raised by colleague Põlluaas concerning international attention. The primary confrontation is directed against Russia's aggression and the violation of international law.

Opposition is absent. The speaker is focused on cooperation and consensus, neither mentioning any opposing party nor criticizing previous decisions (including the presidential veto).

The main confrontation is directed against Russia and its allies (China, Iran, North Korea), who are attempting to change the world order by force. Criticism is also aimed at the internal political polarization and isolationist sentiments among Western allies, which are slowing down aid to Ukraine. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is criticized separately; his actions are causing "Orbán fatigue" among allies and undermining unity.