By Agendas: Mati Raidma

The style is formal and serious, underscoring the time-critical nature of the issue and the necessity of prompt action. The address is balanced, incorporating both logical arguments (detailing the content of the legislation) and recognition for public sector bodies for their sense of mission.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, addressing the Chairman and the President directly. The discourse is logical and procedure-oriented, focusing on specific bills, deadlines, and inter-institutional communication. A slight tonal urgency is perceptible due to the approaching October 10th deadline.

The style is formal, procedural, and informative, characteristic of the lead committee's rapporteur. The tone is professional, yet it also includes an urgent emphasis on the time-critical nature and importance of the process. It employs the rhetorical device "repetition is the mother of wisdom" to justify reiterating the content of the draft proposal.

The speaker's style is formal and analytical, presenting direct questions to the minister concerning strategies and draft legislation. The tone is businesslike and demanding, emphasizing the rapid pace of activity within the security sector and the necessity of updating the foundational policy documents. The rhetoric is purely logic-based and focuses on the policy framework.

The discourse is corrective and procedural, emphasizing communication "for the sake of protocol accuracy." The style is straightforward and logical, contrasting the correct path to a solution (the 'right way') with political performance (a 'political race').

The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and urgent, emphasizing the changed reality of the situation and the necessity of decisive action. The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, relying on budget figures and references to the challenges facing the security environment. There is also an emphasis on social responsibility ("a greater contribution from all of us").

The speaker’s rhetorical style is serious and urgent, utilizing strong emotional language such as "tragic and sad fate" and "genocide policy." The presentation is structured, dividing the statement’s content into three main themes, and effectively blends historical facts with moral appeals. The overall tone is one of condemnation and emphasizes solidarity, urging international action.

The style of address is formal, extremely serious, and urgent, emphasizing the everyday nature of the crisis situation and the growing weight of responsibility. It employs both emotional appeals (Ukraine's heroic fight for freedom, freedom is priceless) and logical arguments supported by concrete figures. The tone is resolute, warning against fatigue and complacency, and calling for swift and decisive action.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and procedural, characteristic of a commission representative describing discussions and procedural decisions. Logical appeals are employed, emphasizing cost-basis and ministerial explanations, while avoiding emotionality, although it is conceded that raising fees is a "difficult decision."

The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and fact-based, focusing on communicating the legal committee's discussions and procedural decisions. The tone is neutral and explanatory, but when faced with repetitive questions, it becomes slightly pedantic, referencing questioners' tardiness in arriving or the prior handling of the topics. Emotional appeals are not used; the text relies entirely on logical and cost-based arguments.

The speech style is extremely brief and functional, focusing on explaining the procedural error. The phrases used ("Accidentally," "Technical fault," "Thank you") suggest a neutral and apologetic tone.

The style is formal and respectful, beginning with expressions of gratitude (esteemed chairman, respected minister) and acknowledging the minister's commitment to Ukraine. The tone is concerned and inquisitive, focusing on the logical formulation of the question regarding the future and prospects of the OSCE.