By Plenary Sessions: Henn Põlluaas

The main opponent is Minister Ligi, who is being criticized for both his policies (economic recession) and his personal conduct (arrogance, denial of criticism, and accusing MPs of lying). The opposition is intense and uncompromising, stressing that the grounds for a vote of no confidence have not disappeared.

The primary opposition is aimed at Minister of Economic Affairs Tiit Riisalo (Eesti 200) and his assertions regarding the detrimental impact of taxing extraordinary profits on Estonian business. The criticism is political and centers on the absence of substantive arguments, labeling the opposing side's claims as unsubstantiated assertions.

The primary adversary is the government, particularly Interior Minister Lauri Läänemets, whose competence and responses are being called embarrassing and inadequate. Criticism is aimed both at specific political decisions (the removal of the monument, the acceptance of Ukrainian men) and at the government's alleged submission to the Russian Putinist narrative. No compromise is being offered; instead, they are demanding a complete change in policy and the repatriation of draft dodgers.

Strong opposition is directed at the government and the Finance Minister, who is criticized for the budget’s lack of transparency, flawed forecasts, and illogical expenditures (such as a failure to implement savings). The criticism is also personal, accusing the minister of arrogance, humiliating questioners, and incompetence (for example, not knowing the word "recession").

The main opponent is the government, which faces criticism both for its political decisions (the erosion of the sense of security) and for procedural failures (the violation of standard inclusion practices). The criticism is intense and moralistic, accusing the government of neglecting families and the public's livelihoods. There is no sign of a willingness to compromise; quite the opposite, the opponent's actions are viewed as leading the nation toward disaster.

The main focus of opposition is directed at the minister, whose explanations regarding the high cost of the internet are considered insufficient and illogical. The criticism is policy-driven, calling into question the management of state investments and the pricing policies of telecom companies.