By Months: Kalev Stoicescu

The speech is generally resolute and businesslike, particularly when presenting bills, but turns emotional and combative when criticizing the opposition. He uses logical argumentation to explain the necessity of international cooperation (a two-way street), but also expresses shock and indignation over the actions of his opponents. The necessity of maintaining stoic calm and steadfast resolve under conditions of psychological warfare is emphasized.

The rhetorical style is highly formal, factual, and procedural, making it suitable for the rapporteur of an executive committee. The tone is neutral and logical, focusing on facts, dates, and legislative steps (e.g., the scheduling of sessions and consensus-based decisions). Emotional or personal appeals are avoided; instead, emphasis is placed on the technical and strategic necessity of the operations.

The style is formal and serious, combining historical and moral appeal (when describing the genocide of the Crimean Tatars) with specific data and political rationale (defense expenditures). Strongly condemnatory metaphors are used to describe Russia's actions ("bloody dictator," "cockroaches"). On the topic of defense spending, the tone is rather confident and emphasizes the value provided to taxpayers.

The style is formal and argumentative, combining logical appeals (specific funding percentages and legislative plans) with emotional and patriotic calls ("We are NATO itself"). The tone is predominantly urgent and decisive, especially concerning security topics, but concludes on an optimistic note, emphasizing the importance of the will to defend and calling for less complaining.

The style is formal and substantive, employing both logical argumentation and powerful metaphors (such as "icebreaker" and "war machine"). The tone, particularly on security and economic matters, is urgent and critical, demanding quicker action from allies and the government. When posing questions, the speaker uses a rhetorical technique, comparing Estonia's situation with the practices of neighboring countries (specifically Finland and Sweden's nuclear energy policies).

The style is formal and serious, utilizing the addresses "Esteemed Chair of the Session" and "Dear colleagues." The rhetoric is strongly moralizing and critical of the Russian regime, describing it as inhumane. The speaker balances political justification (the correct decision) with emotional descriptions (the unfairness of elections and the horrors of state governance).

The rhetorical style is formal and serious, but becomes extremely emotional and condemnatory when describing Russia’s crimes, using phrases such as "barbaric Russia" and "the monster named Putin." The speaker balances logical arguments (the development of defense capabilities) with strong moral appeals for justice. The speech concludes with powerful emotional exclamations ("Slava Ukraini!").