By Months: Kristo Enn Vaga

Criticism or opposition is minimal because the bill passed the committee unanimously. The speaker provides a factual answer to Mr. Epler's question regarding the mission's official name, but neither criticizes the opposing side nor expresses hostility.

Insufficient data.

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.

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.

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.

Insufficient data.

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.