By Months: Kristo Enn Vaga

Total Months: 14

Fully Profiled: 14

All Categories Political Position Topic Expertise Rhetorical Style Activity Patterns Opposition Stance Collaboration Style Regional Focus Economic Views Social Issues Legislative Focus
10.2025

1 Speeches

Insufficient data.
Details View Details
09.2025

14 Speeches

The criticism targets the previous EKREIKE government for mandating incorrect procurement processes, setting it against the procedural approach favored by the Reform Party-led administration. The speaker defends the Ministry of Defence from the State Audit Office audit's critique, conceding there was a bureaucratic mess (paperwork disorder) but denying any diversion of funds or wrongful purchases. Martin Helme, Urmas, and Raimond are mentioned by name as the critics.
Details View Details
05.2025

3 Speeches

Strong opposition is mounting against Lauri Läänemets, who is being criticized for violating parliamentary procedure and missing a vote. There is also sharp criticism directed at the Isamaa party (Urmas Reinsalu and Mart Maastik), accusing them of submitting hollow bills whose sole purpose is to duplicate the government’s activities.
Details View Details
04.2025

5 Speeches

Opposing political groups or individuals are not criticized. The focus is directed toward addressing systemic risks (such as the disruption of communication links) and strengthening the state's resilience, rather than political confrontation.
Details View Details
03.2025

3 Speeches

Insufficient data.
Details View Details
01.2025

4 Speeches

The main opponent is Mr. Reinsalu, who is criticized for both political incompetence and procedural ineptitude. His stance that a loan should be taken out to finance national defense is particularly opposed—a loan he referred to as a "one-off expense." Furthermore, his draft bill is deemed unnecessary because the issue has already been resolved.
Details View Details
12.2024

8 Speeches

They are directly opposing "political opponents" who are spreading misinformation about the purpose of the security tax. The criticism is fact-based and intense, with the goal of refuting claims that the money is not being used to ensure security, and advising them "not to see a ghost where there is none."
Details View Details
11.2024

5 Speeches

The main adversary is Russia, which is described as an aggressor whose expansionist interests threaten the whole of Europe, thereby necessitating Europe to boost its defense readiness. China is criticized for non-competitive state intervention in the production of electric vehicles, which justifies the imposition of EU customs tariffs. Domestic opposition is not criticized in the speeches.
Details View Details
09.2024

9 Speeches

There is no direct political confrontation, but the speaker addresses questions and concerns raised by colleagues (e.g., Vladimir, Priit). He explains why late proposals from interest groups (e.g., the Family Doctors' Association) could not be included in the current draft bill, defending the committee's procedural decisions. He directs the more complex questions (e.g., the basis for background checks) to be discussed within the framework of the future Readiness Act.
Details View Details
06.2024

10 Speeches

Insufficient data is available. The speeches concentrate on presenting the draft bills and responding to questions from colleagues; there is no direct criticism or confrontation with political opponents.
Details View Details
05.2024

1 Speeches

There is no direct opposition, but the speaker makes an implicit reference to the need to address economic revitalization in addition to the current cuts and tax hikes. The criticism is aimed at a policy that focuses solely on cuts and tax increases, rather than on stimulating the economy.
Details View Details
04.2024

6 Speeches

Direct personal criticism was not offered, but mention was made of the obstructionist mass amendments proposed by the EKRE faction, which hindered the processing of the bills. Reference was also made to internal political opposition within the National Defence Committee, where the border guard bill failed to gain a supporting majority (4 in favor, 4 against).
Details View Details
02.2024

2 Speeches

It does not express direct opposition, but rather poses challenging questions to the Foreign Minister regarding the current policy (EU unanimity). It points to conflicting expert opinions circulating in the public domain in order to compel the government to justify its stance.
Details View Details
01.2024

1 Speeches

The remarks do not reveal any direct opposition or criticism toward any group. It is noted that no amendments to the draft bill were submitted by anyone outside the steering committee, which suggests widespread tacit support or minimal opposition.
Details View Details
Back to Profiling