By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The primary conflict is aimed at the government ("this government"), which intends to phase out oil shale, and the businesses accused of enriching themselves with state backing. The criticism is intense, alleging that the opposition is manipulating the smart green energy scheme and engaging in outright deception.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government's energy minister and their policies, particularly regarding the subsidizing of wind energy and the construction of new wind turbines. Strong criticism is also leveled against the state-owned company Elering and the Nord Pool electricity exchange, accusing them of enriching speculators and engaging in unfair competition. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, calling into question the freedom and fairness of the market.

The primary opponents are the government as a whole, specific ministers (Michal, Ligi, Taro), and the Social Democrats. The criticism is intense and policy-based, accusing them of driving the economy into the ground and violating the principles of the rule of law. Compromise is ruled out, as the speaker directly demands "a different government."

The main opponent is the current government and its policies, which are accused of mismanaging priorities and squandering state funds. The criticism is policy- and performance-based, labeling the government’s actions as the "insane burning of state money." The opposition is intense and uncompromising, culminating in a direct call for a new government.

The primary target of opposition is the government and the prime minister, who stand accused of election fraud, tax hikes, and allowing security to deteriorate to its worst state in the last 30 years. The criticism is intense, focusing equally on political legitimacy and specific policy failures. Compromise is off the table, as opponents are demanding the immediate resignation of the government.

The opposition is directed at the actions of the government or the responsible minister concerning the management and financing of the Rail Baltic project. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, calling into question the project's feasibility, security, and the success of international cooperation.

The confrontation is directed against the government/minister, criticizing the content of a specific document and the political choices. The criticism is policy-based, emphasizing the lack of cuts to administrative costs. The intensity of the criticism is highlighted by a factual comparison with Europe.