The political analyst Žarko Puhovski assessed that the prime minister's speech on the state of the nation, as well as the debate on the SDP's motion of no confidence, left a number of questions unanswered. Puhski stated that key questions had not been addressed, and that the core issues were only sporadically raised.
According to Puhski, the debate was characterised by feints and feints, rather than addressing a real issue. The prime minister's performance was considered scandalous and somewhat toxic. He warned that it was toxic that Plenković continued the tradition of Ivo Sanader and Zoran Milanović, not so much by insulting those who asked questions, but by simply not answering them.
"It is scandalous that he does not answer and insults those who have asked the question. Everyone has forgotten, and especially he, as prime minister, that he is talking to his employers. You have to show a certain kind of responsibility to your employers, but there is no sense of responsibility in him towards those people," said Puhski.
He also commented on the prime minister's statement that he was speaking out of the goodness of his heart that the government had done something it did not have to. 'The prime minister is actually saying that the government has done something it did not have to do, which is a rare occurrence in politics anywhere, but especially in Croatia, and it shows an attempt to wrap what has to be done in the guise of good will,' he said.
Speaking about Lika, Puhski noted that the real issue was not whether Lika was poisoned – he believed it was not – but whether Lika was being poisoned. When asked who was responsible for the illegal disposal of waste, he replied that the one who had power was responsible, and that was Plenković and the government. 'The one who has power is responsible. Plenković has the right to say that only they can solve the problem and it is a matter of fact. They have power and are responsible,' he stated.
Puhski also assessed that corruption was not the key issue, although it was a problem. He considered the ability to think historically and to be aware that what we do today has consequences for the future to be key. For Croatia, he said, it is important that it has become clear that there is no ecological awareness except in a small part of the party groups or in non-governmental organisations.
The prime minister's speech was described as a galimatias full of indecent and vulgar themes, and he was horrified that he had thrown pearls before swine. 'Plenković, at one point, had a few minutes of witty, sarcastic remarks about the opposition and just when you thought he was speaking as a decent prime minister, he then said that he was throwing pearls before swine and that was horrifying. A huge story emerged with stuttering, but this was 10 times worse,' he said.
The opposition was told that it had to leave when it was told, but that it had left too early. The president of the Sabor, Gordan Jandroković, was considered to be the biggest hole in the whole system. 'As long as he does not gather his strength and tell the prime minister that he has not answered the question and that he is giving him another two minutes, we do not have the formal conditions for responsibility. If you ignore me, there is no conversation,' he said.
He also criticised the performance of the SDP's leader, Ši-ko, who, he said, was copying the worst of Milanović and Plenković, and so was not responding to the arguments or answering the questions posed. He praised Sanda Benčić, saying that she was the brightest point, and the political love of Magdalene Komes. 'Komes told Hadži Dončić that he understood that insults did not make the prime minister, but then he told him to look at Plenković. If anyone is insulting, it is Plenković, and this political love shows that we have little chance of getting out of this,' he concluded.
In the end, he assessed that the game was played nominally, the cards were dealt and Plenković could not lose. 'He will certainly win the vote and the question was not whether the outcome would change, but whether we would hear something new, but there was very little of that,' Puhski concluded.
