By Agendas: Luisa Rõivas

The primary opposing force is the geopolitical threat posed by "aggressive Russia," requiring a common defense capability to keep it at bay. A second point of criticism targets Europe’s lag in the adoption of artificial intelligence compared to American and Asian companies. Domestically, there is indirect criticism regarding the previous failure to utilize all available EU support funds.

There is no direct criticism of the opposing side, nor is there confrontation with political groups; the questions posed are aimed at clarifying the implementation of the policy and ensuring its long-term impact.

The criticism is aimed at the government's failure to establish a long-term fiscal plan and adequate risk management capabilities, rather than specific policies, given that the increase in defense spending is supported. The concerns are procedural and strategic, demanding that the government implement measures to ensure the allocated funds are used effectively.

There is no direct opposition; instead, strategic and constructive questions are being raised about the government's capacity to support major events and film production. The criticism focuses on finding solutions and the successful execution of the strategy, rather than targeting individuals or procedures.

The confrontation is aimed at the general standard and atmosphere within the Riigikogu, which the speaker criticizes by labeling it a "kindergarten." The criticism is primarily institutional and procedural, rather than personal, although any mention of Jüri Ratas in a political context is immediately rejected.

The opposition is aimed at those who consider the provision of the service "fundamentally wrong" and who focus solely on fetal rights. The criticism is political and legal, accusing opponents of narrowly interpreting the constitution by disregarding the rights of the pregnant woman.

There is no direct confrontation, but the obstructionist tactics of the EKRE faction are being indirectly criticized, specifically referencing the submission and subsequent withdrawal of 50 amendments. Furthermore, the timing of the government's decision-making is also indirectly criticized, as it rendered parliamentary intervention too late.

There is no criticism directed at political opponents. However, mention is made of the 50 amendments submitted by the EKRE faction to their own draft bill, which were intended for obstruction. The speaker stresses that nobody on the committee opposed the bill, not even members of the opposition, indicating consensus support.

The opposition is being addressed procedurally, defending the legitimacy of the motion and the democratic right to bring it forward. Opponents are being given to understand that they have the opportunity to submit their own alternative draft bill, provided they can secure the necessary votes. The criticism is directed at questions that cast doubt on the necessity or the timing of the motion.

The criticism targets the poor management of state finances since 2017, drawing attention to the deepening deficit and the increasing debt burden. The critique is based on policy and outcomes, but no direct adversaries are named.

Direct criticism or concern is aimed at Donald Trump’s potential anti-NATO comments, which are deemed "crazy" and dangerous to allied relations. Indirect criticism is also leveled at the current pace of assistance provided to Ukraine by the European Union and the U.S., suggesting that the aid is insufficient compared to their actual financial capacity.