By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The main opponents are the governing coalition, especially the "pink social democratic party" and former Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets. The criticism is intense and ranges from political motivation (gaining voter support) to ideological accusations (acting like Bolsheviks/Lenin). No willingness to compromise is expressed; instead, opponents are accused of undermining state security for the sake of their political and financial interests.

The confrontation is directed squarely at the government, which is being accused of endless lying and misleading the public regarding the issue of cheap electricity. The criticism is intense and political, stressing that the government is imposing the green agenda at the expense of consumers, thereby serving the business interests of green energy producers. The criticism also extends to Brussels, which is the source of the political decision to make the use of oil shale economically unprofitable.

The confrontation is directed against the ruling coalition and a specific coalition partner (Eesti 200), who are accused of exploiting their political position to benefit affiliated companies. The criticism is intense, focusing on issues of unfair competition and corruption. The speaker questioned the ethics and integrity of the government's actions.

The primary targets of criticism are the government (specifically the prime minister) for the allocation of state funding, and certain Russian-language media outlets (Delfi, Postimees) due to their content and perceived partisan bias. The criticism is intense and centers on issues of values and the misuse of public funds, thereby challenging the fundamental principles of democracy and the independence of the press.

The primary criticism is aimed at Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and her administration, particularly concerning undiplomatic statements made toward the Trump administration and accusations of spreading Kremlin narratives. The criticism is intense and focuses on political and diplomatic missteps.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government, which decided to continue subsidizing the loss-making national airline. The criticism is intense, focusing on political failure and suggesting possible unethical conduct or personal interests.