By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The rhetorical style is extremely urgent and serious, stressing the gravity and critical nature of the situation, and noting that aid is "too little, and too late." It employs both logical arguments (financial data) and emotional appeals (deported children, the execution of Navalny). The language is formal and demanding, underscoring the need for action rather than "verbose and beautiful rhetoric."

The style is urgent, sharply critical, and combative, accusing the government of incompetence, wasting time, and lying to the public. Both emotional appeals (driving society into depression) and logical arguments are utilized, relying on statistics and labeling the government's actions as "new Orwellism" and a "command economy." The speaker emphasizes that the government is dealing merely with "talking points" instead of substantive solutions.

The rhetorical style is critical, insistent, and confrontational, yet it maintains formal respect ("Mr. Minister of Finance! With all due respect"). Strong emotional expressions are used ("catastrophically eroded trust," "massive tax hikes"), and an unusual personal plea is presented: "don't do it."

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, accusatory, and demanding, calling the government's policy a failure. The speaker uses repeated questions and demands concrete answers, accusing the prime minister of evading the substance of the question. The style is formal but emotionally charged, emphasizing economic stress and indecision.

The rhetorical style is exceedingly urgent and critical, underscoring the pivotal weight of the situation and the necessity for immediate action. The speaker employs logical and data-driven arguments (e.g., financial requirements, percentages of aid shortfall) to illustrate the inadequacy of the West's efforts. The tone is formal and authoritative, centering on the diagnosis of a systemic crisis.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and data-driven, focusing on refuting the head of government’s assertions with specific economic indicators. The tone is urgent and accusatory, noting that the Prime Minister’s responses are essentially just "talking points" and unequivocally accusing him/her of presenting a false claim. The appeals are primarily logical, relying on statistics and widespread public opposition.