Agenda Profile: Henn Põlluaas

The political focus centers on strong opposition to granting international protection in Estonia to Ukrainian men of mobilization age, arguing that doing so undermines Ukraine's defense capacity and runs contrary to the wishes of the Ukrainian president. This position is deeply value-based, stressing the duty to defend one's homeland and the trustworthiness of allied relationships, and calls for the return of those evading service. The political action is fueled by significant dissatisfaction with the government's responses and alleged inconsistencies in their policies.

The speaker demonstrates detailed knowledge regarding the statistics of Ukrainian military conscripts arriving in Estonia, presenting exact figures for men (aged 18–60) who have received temporary and international protection. They note that men account for a striking 70% of those granted international protection. Specific terminology is employed (division, deserters), and references are made to Ukrainian laws (lowering the mobilization age) and media sources (Postimees, Romanian refugees). Based on the data provided, there are approximately 11,000 military-age men in Estonia in total, which is "roughly the equivalent of one division."

The rhetorical style is combative, forceful, and sharply critical, expressing profound dissatisfaction with the responses received and highlighting a deep dissonance within the government's actions. Both statistical data and strong moral and hypothetical appeals are utilized (for example, how would we view allies who accepted Estonian deserters) to underscore the duty of defending the homeland. The address is formal yet emotionally charged, accusing the government of playing into the Kremlin's hands.

The speaker is participating in the submission of the interpellation (No. 643) and refers to repeated previous questions on the same topic, addressed both to the former Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, which demonstrates persistent activity in raising this issue.

The primary adversaries are government circles, especially Interior Minister Läänemets and former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who are criticized for the lack of substantive answers and the direct undermining of Ukraine’s defense capabilities. The criticism is intense and policy-driven, accusing the government of unreliable allied conduct and of protecting draft dodgers seemingly from Ukraine.

Cooperation is seen as necessary with the Ukrainian government to help repatriate conscripts and offer them a basic soldier training course upon their return. There is no information regarding domestic cross-party cooperation.

The focus is international, centering on relations between Estonia and Ukraine and the impact of Russian aggression. Mention is made of Ukraine's mobilization laws, the prevailing shortage of men at the front, and the flight of draft dodgers to Romania.

It is mentioned that conscripts can obtain residence and work permits in Estonia with extreme ease, and they are paid benefits, thereby highlighting the costs involved and the easy access to the Estonian economic sphere. Broader positions regarding taxes, trade, or regulation are absent.

The social issue under consideration is immigration policy, specifically focusing on the acceptance of men subject to military service and the provision of protection to them. The stance taken is highly restrictive, underscoring the duty of national defense, security concerns, and the need to set a moral example for the country's own citizens.

The speech was delivered within the framework of an interpellation, which is an oversight tool. The speaker demands that the problem be solved and proposes a specific political measure: offering assistance for the return of the men and providing them with a basic soldier training course.