By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The main opponent is Foreign Minister Tsahkna, who is personally criticized for his "pig-headedness" and lack of historical awareness. Criticism is also directed at the decision-making procedure (the "axe method," referring to a heavy-handed approach) and the political substance (misplaced priorities, the destruction of symbols). The Minister pushed the decision through despite opposition from coalition partners and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The opposition is directed against the current energy policy and the leaders driving the green transition, who are being criticized both for the policy’s consequences (unstable energy supply) and for their dishonesty (wasting resources under the guise of environmental protection). The criticism is strong and focuses specifically on political choices and their negative impact.

The main opponent is the Minister of the Interior and, more broadly, the government (including the Social Democrats), who are accused of chaos, arbitrary rule, and violating the constitution. The criticism is intense and personal, demanding the minister's swift resignation due to his lack of historical education and the desecration of the freedom struggle. The resistance of "no-officials" to government directives is also being opposed.

Direct opponents are not criticized, but indirect criticism is leveled regarding the state's insufficient action in supporting and developing the drone sector. The criticism is policy- and performance-based, not personal.

The chief opponent is the government, specifically the Prime Minister, who is accused of coordinating and sanctioning the removal of the Lihula monument. The criticism is both procedural (secret planning) and value-based (the mischaracterization of the Estonian freedom struggle). The speaker accuses the government of confusing monuments dedicated to perpetrators of genocide with the commemoration of Estonian freedom fighters.

The primary targets are the prime minister and the government, who are being criticized for financial irresponsibility and for implementing "externally sourced ideas." The criticism is intense and policy-driven, accusing the government of destroying the rural economy and exports, and demonstrating a malicious attitude toward children's education. There is no willingness to compromise; the policies are considered utterly irrational.