By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The speaker employs a highly combative, critical, and urgent rhetorical style, utilizing powerful emotional appeals to characterize the situation as "an embarrassing, shameful fiasco" and "chaos." While logical and procedural demands are put forward (an investigative committee, EMK), the overall tone remains accusatory and demanding, specifically blaming the government for having lost its substantive legitimacy. The speaker further uses rhetorical devices, referring to the minister as nothing more than a "spokesperson" and thereby distancing them from any real responsibility.

The rhetorical style is combative, demanding, and accusatory, faulting the government for incompetence and mismanagement. Strong negative assessments ("bungling actions") are employed, coupled with logical, detailed questions regarding the financial negotiations and the decision-making process. The speaker repeatedly demands the public disclosure of specific data and names.

The rhetorical style is insistent, serious, and admonitory, emphasizing the gravity of national security interests and the escalating threat ("a matter of life and death"). It employs both logical arguments (citing research and security analysis) and emotional pressure, accusing opponents of succumbing to the temptation of petty politics. The language is formal and at times complex, featuring direct appeals and demands.

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and forceful, highlighting the danger inherent in delays and political shortsightedness. Strong metaphors are employed, such as "the Eye of Sauron" and keeping the coalition "effectively hostage." The argumentation is primarily logical and procedural, focusing on the vagueness of the draft legislation ("impersonal, euphemized") and the necessity of making decisions based on substantive quality.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, emphasizing the government's responsibility and dishonesty (using the word "lied"). Strong metaphors are employed ("tax circus," "point of void") and appeals are made both to logic (economic recession, figures) and to emotions (the reduction of pensioners' incomes). The speaker demands "rational explanations" from the prime minister and warns that the "moment of reckoning" will inevitably arrive.

The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, utilizing a brief story about a nursing home resident as an emotional appeal, but relying primarily on statistical data. The tone is direct and demanding, posing pointed questions to the prime minister regarding the analysis of policy impacts. Formal and detailed language is employed.

The tone is urgent, decisive, and strategic, emphasizing vital risks and the need for more determined resolve. Both logical arguments (policy agendas, budgetary frameworks) and moral appeals are utilized, defining Russia as the perpetrator of genocide. The style is formal and demanding, calling on the government to be specific and not sluggish.

The style is formal and straightforward, addressing the Prime Minister respectfully yet insistently. The tone is analytical and fact-based, focusing exclusively on logical inquiries and the demanding of numerical data. Emotional or personal appeals are entirely absent.