By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The style of discourse is formal, analytical, and cautious, employing both detailed questions regarding implementation and broad historical argumentation. The tone is critical of the government's approach, highlighting logical and legal constraints, even though the subject matter itself is considered more a question of the heart than of the mind.

The style is formal, analytical, and skeptical, focusing on highlighting the lack of clarity in the government's plans and criticizing the phrasing of the coalition agreement as "clumsy." Logical appeals are employed, citing political documents directly and repeatedly demanding concrete figures and explanations (e.g., "How many workers are we talking about?", "What exactly does this exception entail?").

The style is formal and inquiry-oriented, addressing both the chair and the presenter respectfully. The speaker utilizes a logical appeal (logos), drawing on external information (national public broadcasting, intelligence data) to substantiate their questions.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the Prime Minister directly ("Dear Prime Minister"). The rhetoric is logical and centers on demanding accountability, posing specific questions regarding policy implementation and the progress of investments. Cautious support is expressed initially, followed by a sharp series of questions.

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical and forceful, emphasizing the urgency of national defense issues and expressing concern over the lack of unified decision-making. Both logical arguments (budgetary impact, delivery timelines) and strong accusations leveled at the government (misleading the public) are employed. The speaker attempts to elevate the issue to the level of public discourse, drawing a comparison to the previous debate on energy policy.