By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

Direct confrontation is not expressed, but the government is criticized indirectly, using a socio-political bill as a platform to demand the restoration of benefits for families with many children. The politician suggests that issues concerning children and youth should be given greater priority at the government level.

Strong opposition is directed at the Government of the Republic and its ministers, who are criticized for cynicism and inadequate policy (e.g., the Minister of Finance's alleged recommendation to "eat less"). The criticism is both political (the failure of the tax system) and ideological, opposing the individualistic worldview ("everyone is the master of their own destiny"). The government's actions are described as leading the country "into a deep hole."

The confrontation is directed against the actions of the government or the commission, especially regarding the rejection of the measure and the lack of discussion of alternatives. He sharply criticizes the motor vehicle tax, citing its extremely negative public reception.

The speaker is clearly adopting an opposition stance, criticizing the government (the Ministry of Finance) for its failure to curb rising prices and ensure stable economic policy. The critique is directed at specific political decisions (tax increases) and their negative effect on the economy.

The main criticism is directed at the government and the coalition, particularly regarding their tax policy (the car tax) and social policy (ignoring the poorest segments of society). The criticism is policy-driven and intense, accusing the government of losing the public's trust and exacerbating inequality. Rather than showing a willingness to compromise, critics are demanding the complete repeal of the government's policies (e.g., the car tax).