If true, interesting. And of course, the numbers can vary.

Yet what is likely that Ukraine hasn't used it's armored forces heavily as it tries to preserve it's strength, just as it tries to preserve it's meagre air force. A conventional counterattack might give a too good target to the Russian forces and cause severe attrition to the fewer Ukrainian armored units.

(Forbes) Ukraine has lost at least 74 tanks—destroyed or captured—since Russia widened its war on the country starting the night of Feb. 23.

But Ukraine has captured at least 117 Russian tanks, according to open-source-intelligence analysts who scrutinize photos and videos on social media.

In other words, the Ukrainian army might actually have more tanks now than a month ago—all without building a single brand-new tank or pulling some older vehicle out of storage.

The Russians meanwhile have captured at least 37 Ukrainian tanks—a sum inadequate to compensate for the roughly 274 tanks it is believed to have lost to all causes.

The disparity in captured tanks speaks to Russia’s lack of preparation for a high-intensity war against a determined foe. But it also speaks to the advantages any defender possesses over any attacker.

Tell me, if you and your best friend were presidents of two opposing nuclear powers, how would you approach the subject? Total disarmament? "I found president X very disarming" or would you plan for the day one or both were replaced my madmen, 'neocons' or imperialists? Would you win any elections. I don't think there will be any peacenick presidents in our future. — FreeEmotion

It's a long process for countries to change their views of others from "possible enemy" to friend. Now many politicians indeed can have "peacenick" ideas, but it takes a while before the militaries themselves have "peacenick" ideas.

Just think of the United States and the United Kingdom. After WWI they had been allies.

Even after the two countries fought WW1 together, the US had warplans called War Plan Red to fight the British alongside their plans for a possible war with Japan (War Plan Yellow).



Now how incredible does that sound? What's the reasoning behind it? Well, not much if anything. And just how easily tensions can rise is when you look at the relationship that China and the Soviet Union had. So from being on the same side in Korea, later they had a border war.

Nearly the last thing to disappear is the hypothetical possibility of a conflict, and a lot of integration and friendly ties and relationships happen before. And far more likely before total disarmament is that your generals and your best friends generals are cozily sharing planning joint actions towards a possible third country as a hypothetical threat.

t is entirely possible that at the end (if there is an end) the Russians will declare that their goal was always whatever it is that they will have decided to settle on, and that will be it. — SophistiCat

Not only entirely possible, but very likely. Putin's Russia has already moved a lot into the realm of Soviet style information policy and narrative.

The fact that calling the war a war is forbidden tells this totally clear. There are more political prisoners in Russia than there were in the Soviet Union in the 1970's according to some observers. The exact number is obviously unknown.

Just a year ago:

The number of political prisoners in Russia today is nearly five times higher than it was five years ago, according to the latest report from the Memorial Human Rights Center. Activists began maintaining a list of Russian political prisoners in the late 2000s, and for a long time it was made up of a few dozen names. But this tally has increased sharply since 2015. Today, the country has 420 political prisoners and is poised to catch up to the numbers seen during the twilight years of the USSR.

And now, btw, the Memorial Human Rights Center, the oldest human rights group in Russia, which now is being foreclosed. It's primary function was to record the crimes against humanity during Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Mutually Assured Commitment to Chickening out? — FreeEmotion

That has happened many times. Which is the good thing here. And that's why it's largely hypothetical the idea of "escalate-to-de-escalate" and the whole debate about the use of nuclear weapons is hypothetical. The use of let's say conventional ballistic missiles isn't: there in use, actually with both side in the Ukraine conflict.

I remember a story of Leonid Brezhnev. He was participating in a military exercise in the Soviet Union as head of the state. So when the exercise came to moment where he would confirm the launching of the Soviet nuclear weapons (and Soviet doctrine was based on using nuclear weapons to counter Western air superiority), he started to panic and fearfully started to ask: "This is an exercise, right?".

Another telling anecdote I read came from the memoirs of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan and Bush, admiral Crowe. Usually high level wargames that had nuclear weapons ended with both Cold War sides refraining to use them. So they wanted to see what would happen when they were used and tilted the wargame that nuclear exchanges would happen. The result was that the wargame itself became so tense and nerve wrecking for the participants that one had to be hospitalized.

It's obvious that nuclear weapons aren't thought of as just weapons with more firepower than ordinary weapons. Which is a good thing.

Is there anything "morally wrong" about total disarmament? I am missing something here. — FreeEmotion

It's not just a moral question and when all war is morally wrong, I guess total disarmament is morally correct.

However:

Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries that likely won't invade it or militarily pressure it. Why would it need it's army? Well, the argument is that we cannot know what the future brings us and once you have disbanded your deterrence, hard to get it back. Similar with nuclear weapons. If someone accepts to disarm totally the nuclear arsenal and then simply lies and others go through with it.

A side with nuclear weapons when others don't have it can quite freely make military excursions and use military force, as can be seen from the example of Israel or Russia (with Ukraine).

I think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective. — Manuel

When things don't work and junior leaders don't take initiative, then it's a general that has to go to the front and sort it out. Which is a dangerous place.

That's one way to look at it, yes.

If the question can't be answered it is o.k, but I am simply asking, would, in your mind, a 'limited response' 'even a conventional response' be any less effective deterrent than a 'total response?' — FreeEmotion

The basic problem is that nobody of course does know how in reality any nuclear exchange would go. What could be said that neither side would be enthusiastic to continue the escalation. But a "tit-for-tat" could happen.

The time has passed when Curtis LeMay during the Cuban Missile crisis could think that having nuclear war could be the option: Russia had only a few ICBMs back then. LeMay and US generals could perhaps have the reasoning that "let's have it now" attitude, although there's no historical proof of this during the Cuban crisis. In the 1980's and afterwards it has been totally different.

What we can go with is historical events, where you obviously have had far smaller exchanges, but still:

Example 1:

President Trump kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in January 3rd 2020 with a drone strike. Iran retaliates on January 8th with 12 ballistic missiles fired at US bases. 110 US Servicemen suffer from mainly concussions with few recieving later the Purple Heart.

No response from the US.

Example 2:

Turkey shoots down a Russian fighter bomber after it had veered into Turkish aerospace in 2015. The Russian pilot was killed, the navigator was rescued.

No military response from Russia. Russia-Turkish relations strained for a while, but got back to normal in 2016.

Of course these are totally minor events, but It should be noted that on both occasions neither Russia or the US escalated the situation afterwards with some punitive strikes (in the US case, Trump didn't counter the Iranian attack). The reality is that Iran isn't Saddam's Iraq and even the neocons didn't attack the country as it would be militarily a stupid move: it's a large country with reasonable armed forces.

So I guess that after a "limited strike" getting "limited response" back, what then? After two tactical nuclear weapons exchanged (likely on military targets), what would be the reason or the motivation to continue? Everybody would be panicking. It just isn't really smart in any way. The only way would be if you would be sure that the other side will chicken out.

:100: :up:

Well, it's been anticipated that Belarus would join the fight for a long time. And it hasn't.

Yet the fact is the Russian reality is absolutely strange. It's a myriad of strange occurrences and crazy events in the eyes of Westerners. I don't know what would come close to it: a perpetual Trump administration? It's really different from the West.

In a way it's on purpose organized to various different elements, a multitude of intelligence services with their own military forces and to army and national guard, in order that there wouldn't be some strong counterweight to Putin himself. Quite similar to the Third Reich, actually.

Could someone please enlighten me on this MAD strategy. — FreeEmotion

I think it's already has changed from mutually assured destruction to "reasonable" assured destruction as the amount of nuclear weapons have luckily been decreased radically. US and Russian politicians in the 1990's did some good agreements and many of those Russian warheads ended up as nuclear fuel for American cities (one of the rare nice stories about disarmament). The country that is increasing it's nuclear deterrence is China. But it's still way smaller than the US and Russian stockpiles:

The number of Chinese nuclear warheads could increase to 700 within six years, the report said, and may top 1,000 by 2030. The report released on Wednesday did not say how many weapons China has today, but a year ago the Pentagon said the number was in the “low 200s” and was likely to double by the end of this decade.

I see you have no argument against my argument other than "this is how we've been doing it for decades!" Pretty cool of you to assume ignorance instead ofengaging my argument that clearly disagrees with nuclear deterrence as an acceptable policy.

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

Perhaps it's flawed, but I'm not so sure if "surrender if threatened with nuclear weapons" would really work better.

Of course how could I know. I'm not the one living under the nuclear umbrella.

This neonazi accusation is one of Putin's justifications for war, as you pointed out. 'Cheerleading' would be to relay it uncritically. — Olivier5

What I think should be considered cheerleading was enthusiastically promoting the idea "Russia invading Ukraine has no truth to it and is only American media hype" or the idea that the US sponsors bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Or trying to argue (several times, actually) that Vladimir Putin isn't a dictator.

That kind of cheerleading has been seen in this thread. By various different people, I should add.

The unfolding war in Ukraine has taken a backseat to petty point-scoring arguments by some.

A war of words on TPF is nothing new but this latest round has taken it to another level. — Amity

In truth people were far more angry about police brutality in the US (George Floyd et al), but then it wasn't as divided.

Perhaps Ukraine is so far away...

I agree that change, as difficult as it will be, has to come from within, with support.
Views of protestors from inside Russia.
Posted in the Shoutbox. — Amity

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. If people here can safely go and protest the actions of the US and the West when the West has started wars with imperial ambitions (like the invasion of Iraq), you would think they would support those doing that in other countries where it's dangerous to do that and oppose similar wars of conquest.

If Putin uses nukes, we shouldn't do anything. — Benkei

Letting then Russian tanks to the streets of Netherlands is doing a lot, not doing anything, actually.

Let's take the kindergarten morality out of hese equations please for fuck's sake I'm begging everyone before you cause the death of my children. — Benkei

Talk of an overreaction. Weren't you born during the Cold War? Seems you have been blissfully ignorant about nuclear deterrence or how it works.

We should offer our support to those within Russia who are protesting the invasion. They are not some abstract coterie of internationalists; they are the true Russian patriots – the people who truly love their country and have become deeply ashamed of it since February 24

Besides, they are the ones that can change Russia.

If he uses nukes his presidency is over. I'm sure he realizes that. — frank

But does @Benkei feel the same way?

No really, what makes the idea of "escalate-to-de-escalate" so scary is that it could work. The risks are obvious and a simple normal deterrence posture will likely make it far too risky. The absence of that deterrence posture is what makes it scary.

If everyone thinks that once a small nuke is used it inevitably leads to an all out exchange with even all the reserves being used, so everything has to be sacrificed to get an armstice, then it becames a possible (if still risky) move escalate-to-de-escalate.

... yeah ... true, but that just means Russia's only option to deal make their point of Finland not joining NATO is with nuclear weapons. — boethius

No. It's not their only option. How about starting with a) oil & gas embargo, b) migration crisis, c) naval blockade, d) whatever else. Having a panic attack like some about nukes in truth is the last option.

One has to keep a cool head, just like the President of Finland said.

I don't feel all that safer about the fact Russian soldiers are tied up in Ukraine and NATO is escalating tensions ... with the explicit goal to bleed the Russians and collapse the Russian state, which Russia has said it would use Nuclear weapons in that exact scenario NATO desires. — boethius

Finland is closer to war than it has been for a long time. But it's not so close as in the mid 1930's at all. It's still just your average political crisis. That's not a reason to hyperventilate, but to think calmly about the situation.

Russia's plan didn't go the way it was intended. That's clear now. So they are entangled in this war in Ukraine. And Finland is sending arms to Ukraine. That's the reality we have to face.

I will welcome Russian tanks in my street if it avoids a nuclear war. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a strategic nuclear escalation. Freedom be damned. I prefer to live and find the relative freedom possible even in the most autocratic regimes. — Benkei

That's the attitude that Putin is basing his ideas on using nukes to "escalate-to-de-escalate".

He just needs people like you, @Benkei. If everyone would think like you, it would be totally logical for him to invade the Baltics, at least to get that "landbridge" through the Suwalki corridor to Kaliningrad and basically make NATO meaningless. All the objectives he has purposed in December of last year could be met.

Your idea brings the use of nuclear weapons far closer than you think.

And it behoves us then as passive observers to put some effort in, no? Some critical thought? — Baden

As long as the Russian army is fighting in Ukraine, there are few Russian soldiers on our border and near my summerplace (which is on the border). :smile:

And my objection is that this is an attitude that is easy to take when you're not in the firing line. — Baden

We seldom find ourselves in the firing line, yet we do comment on the events that happen around the World.

(Although it's sign of the times that many volunteers are going to Ukraine to fight. Similar things happened in the Spanish Civil War and even few came to the Winter War. And no doubt there are also Syrians that support the Russians being there to help the Assad regime and will go to fight in Ukraine for Russia for a decent salary.)

Of course if there would be Ukrainians participating in this forum, I think they would find many comments insulting.

Worth wile to see.

The former economic advisor to Putin, Illarionov, makes extremely good points and comments. Good comments for example about Mearsheimer and just how long Putin has been obsessed about Ukraine.

Every party has limitations but who do you think will take more pain before folding? Putin or the West? — Baden

That's easy. Putin and Russia, or basically the Russians can take magnitudes more pain before folding. At worst, once if they do fold, it could become even worse for them. Authoritarian regimes are like this: they can bend over backwards, clamp down on protests, look very strong and popular... until everything snaps. Democracies will have their political crisis far much earlier, which will make them less harmful. That may look to some people as weakness, but it isn't actually. And since the starting points are totally different, it's an interesting question. The Soviet Union looked eternal too...until it collapsed.

Just wait until that changes as the economic and security stakes rocket. I don't believe we're built for a confrontation with Putin and I don't believe he doesn't know that. — Baden

Don't underestimate yourself. Just in comparison, would you have thought Western people would fold so quickly in line with covid lock downs? Also, now it might look that West Europe is bound to have the energy ties to Russia. In one year it can be different.

I can't do anything with this. What limitations? Why? What would stop Putin from shooting a 1 MT tactical nuke into Kiev or Mariupol if he can't do it by conventional means? You think NATO or the US will all of sudden get involved? — Benkei

No, they won't get involved. And basically he doesn't need to use a strategic ballistic missiles. A tactical nuke will scare enough people, yet that happening has a very low probability.

Because... then what?

You think Russians would be fine with that? Ukrainians, who before were brotherly people now against are used nuclear weapons... because Russia had them? The time when nuclear weapons were just weapons with large firepower was in the thinking of American generals in the late 1940's.

You think China will be totally OK with Russia using nukes at Ukraine? I don't think so.

Unless you can convincingly argue that Putin will not escalate until he's assured of victory, it's exactly this fantasy that will lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. — Benkei

Putin has surely his limitations on what he can do. Don't think otherwise.

which of the following do you think is the more likely outcome?

A) Ukraine eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight was most likely not in their interests.

B) Putin eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in? — Baden

Hard to tell. Likely at least Putin will declare it a huge victory in any case and the objectives he had have been gloriously met by the victorious Russian army.

And Ukraine can declare...that they survived.

I presume you would not support the contiuation of a pointless war of attrition, the only appreciable result of which is greatly increased levels of suffering among the most vulnerable? — Baden

No. But this is the scariest outcome. From the realpolitik view, an option is for the West to keep Russia bleeding in Ukraine. At least then it isn't threatening other countries. Luckily there is the agency of Ukraine: they are the ones fighting and material support doesn't mean anything if there isn't the will to fight (as seen in the rapid collapse of Afghanistan). If Ukraine agrees on halting the war either from their offer or from an offer Putin has made, nobody else can say something about it.

For a historical example: just look how long it took Iran and Iraq finally to stop the war, even if the Iraqi primary assault was halted quickly.

Not to the millions of Ukrainians who support more integration with Russia. not to mention the millions more who wouldn't give a shit about being considered "Little Russians" if it meant their sons and daughters were not killed in war. — Isaac

I think it would be here important for you to see the sea-change what has happened in Ukraine, even before this invasion. As I've said earlier, before 2014 Vladimir Putin was very respected and popular politician in Ukraine. Afterwards not. Russia tried to instill insurrection in 8 regions and was successful in two (Donetsk and Luhansk). Now after this large scale invasion, I don't think there's much enthusiasm to join Russia. That's the funny thing when you start invading countries ,annexing territories and bombing people.

And perhaps you should notice that while Donetsk and Luhansk what the UN or Human Rights Watch have explained of these now "independent" Republics is telling.

From an UN report (from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in 2016:

12. Residents of territories under the armed groups’ control are particularly vulnerable
to human rights abuses, which are exacerbated by the absence of the rule of law and any
real protection. OHCHR continued to receive and verify allegations of killings, arbitrary
and incommunicado detention, torture and ill-treatment in the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. In these territories, armed groups have established
parallel ‘administrative structures’ and have imposed a growing framework of ‘legislation’
which violate international law, as well as the Minsk Agreements.
13. The ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’ continued to deny
OHCHR access to places of detention. OHCHR is concerned about the situation of
individuals deprived of their liberty in the territories controlled by armed groups, due to the
complete absence of due process and redress mechanisms. Of particular concern are those
currently held in the former Security Service building in Donetsk and in the buildings
currently occupied by the ‘ministries of state security’ of the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’
and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’.
14. OHCHR is also increasingly concerned about the lack of space for civil society
actors to operate and for people to exercise their rights to freedoms of expression, religion,
peaceful assembly and association in the territories controlled by armed groups. In January
2016, the ‘ministry of state security’ carried out a wave of arrests and detention of civil
society actors in the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’.
15. OHCHR documented allegations of enforced disappearances, arbitrary and
incommunicado detention, and torture and ill-treatment, perpetrated with impunity by
Ukrainian law enforcement officials, mainly by elements of the Security Service of Ukraine
(SBU). OHCHR urges the Ukrainian authorities to ensure prompt and impartial
investigation into each reported case of human rights violations, as well as the prosecution
of perpetrators. Accountability is critical to bring justice for victims, curtail impunity, and
foster long-lasting peace.

These new republics have shown the worrying signs of how it will be in the Putin controlled Ukraine.

I object to your assessment of Ukraine. — Isaac

That it's a poor corrupt country where the people have been long angry about their ruling politicians? That even those who have promised them change have disappointed too?

If there's something I have tried to point out, is that when the leader who starts a war against a country says the "country is artificial", there's not much appeasement that the country could have taken to avoid the war. Surrendering would have only enforced the idea of Ukrainians being "lesser-Russians" or "little-Russians". NATO expansion wasn't the only reason for this war. And since Ukraine has a lot of problems, it would have been in my view very easy for Russia to keep Ukraine out of NATO. After all, Russia got all those US bases closed in Central Asia (that now the US desperately would want to have) without invading them.

What likely isn't fake news is that Russia has lost many generals (perhaps four or five) and high ranking commanders in the war. This does tell about that the operation hasn't gone well and that in a hierarchial organization like the Russian army, lower commanders taking initiative isn't supported, hence the generals have to come and lead from the front. It also tells about a highly working SIGINT of the Ukrainians that they can find the location of the generals and then use artillery at them. That the West has it's finger on this, can be likely.

In a documentary of the Russo-Georgian war these's footage of the 58th Army commander doing exactly this: before the drive to South Ossetia, a the general spoke a huge crowd of various officers and soldiers just how the lead formations will move Tskhinvali.

I'm pretty confident the REUTERS picture happened. Not so much about the dumpster. It's possible and even likely, I'm just saying that there's plenty of proof out there of fake pictures and videos. — Benkei

Of course. I'd agree it's likely, but the probability of it being fake isn't zero. And even if it's simply thoughtlessness of those who cleaned up the stadium, it still shows that in an authoritarian system you cannot be sure just how original or astro-turf public support is.

Obviously Putin does have his supporters, no doubt.

But one should notice that Putin's Russia is authoritarian, and spontaneity is usually controlled "spontaneity". Letting people to be spontaneous is not the correct way in Russia.

And of course those who are against the "special military operation" and even say it would be a war, can face jailtime.

Of course you don't. And these people came all with their own flags to the stadium, which they cherish so much. They weren't handed to them by the organizers, no?

It seems the Ukrainians are successfully dismantling the group west of Kyiv, and have retaken Irpin.

An intercepted phone call recording was released by Ukraine’s Security Service late Tuesday, indicating total disarray on the Russian side in this area. — Olivier5

Yes, they seem to try to encircle the Russian forces. This I think could be the first major operation as the counterattacks before have been tactical ones. But seems like at least for a while, the push towards Kyiv by the Russian forces has halted and they are on the defensive.

Anatoly Tsubais resigned and seems he has left the country. Had lasted there since Yeltsin times.

After Putin's stadium performance, flags dumped into garbage. Sometimes a picture tells a lot, actually.

My knowledge of them is irrelevant. — Isaac

Yet you have firm convictions about them being perfectly sensible solutions.

Okay, I meant poverty income -- those just above or below poverty level set forth by the governmen — L'éléphant

Yep. And for this you basically have to have measure of absolute poverty.

Why I took this up is because if one let's say just looks at income inequality, then you can get draw wrong conclusions about the issue. Because the fact is that income inequality decreases when there is a war or a severe economic depression. That hardly is good for the poorest, who a hit the most.

If there's basic income for everybody, no one has to do stupid jobs. — L'éléphant

Or perpetual unemployment benefits. Now a welfare state does create it's own problems, but these are really not so big to the problems of there being no welfare state or there cracks in the welfare network, through which people can fall into absolute poverty.

Just to clarify, lest I'm absolved of guilt unfairly - I have supported 'carving up' Ukraine. I think an independent Donbass and a Russian Crimea are perfectly sensible solutions. — Isaac

And how well you know these independent states of Luhansk and Donetsk?

Yeah, I mean, those primitive people over there have no agency of their own, do they? They are nothing but pawns of the powerful. They couldn't have risen up against a corrupt and oppressive regime without Nulland engineering the whole thing. They wouldn't even dream of resisting an invasion by a force that threatens their existence as a people without great powers "convincing" them to fight. — SophistiCat

Bravo.

But as you so well put it, this is the thinking of many here.

Here the agency comes into view so well when you compare the fight the Ukrainian armed forces are putting up and the fight the Afghan Natioanal Army put up against the Taleban. I think it would be good to compare Zelensky and his actions to Ashraf Ghani to his. Ghani, who left as a young boy Afghanistan, went into an American high school and continued to Berkeley, then made a stellar career in international organizations like the World Bank. And then fled Afghanistan with presumably a large fortune.

Talk about agency. And real puppet regimes.

No it isn't natural that there are low income — L'éléphant

If income varies even a bit, there will be low and high income.

we agree that low income are those who couldn't afford a lot of things that moderate and above average earners enjoy — L'éléphant

Yet this defintion simply needs the idea of absolute povetry.

You're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin. — baker

No, he's genuinely being pro-Putin. Did you read through the his quotes that I gave? Likely not.

Neither @Isaac or @StreetlightX or anybody else is saying such obvious pro-Putin arguments and willing to carve up Ukraine. Nobody else promotes such nonsensical views.

It'll be George Soros next. — Baden

Oh our forum Putinist has already extensively covered the evils of George Soros. :smile:

I had a private student from there a few years back and the main impression I got from him was of a deeply dysfunctional poverty-stricken country ravaged by institutionalized corruption. — Baden

That is the sad truth.

I remember what a Finnish former MP privately told about Ukraine. He had been the head of the Finnish-Ukrainian Parliamentary group (made obviously of both Finnish Ukrainian MPs). In a meeting with his Ukrainian counterparts he said that his time as the Finnish head of the group was over as he had lost the elections. The Ukrainians were sorry to hear that, until someone of them asked how long he had served in the Parliament. When he replied that had been a member of Parliament for 12 years, they were "Ah, no problem! You have no troubles!" After all, every MP in the World has had to acquired quite a wealth in 12 years and be a rich man.

During a war it's better to ditch democracy because it's sloppy and inefficient. Come back to it after the war is over.

The pundits are saying this is going to be a very long war, tho. — frank

It unfortunately looks to be a long, bloody war.

All the more reason to be critical of power, always, no matter what rock star status one might have. — StreetlightX

Yes. Democracies can stay as democracies even during the war... but it will be tough. Martial laws are never nice or very democratic. I think that here common sense can prevail: common sense just what is covert action of the enemy and what is simply opposition. But leadership is needed as war brings up very nasty emotions.