According to a report circulating on the Telegram channel known as “Insider UA,” Oleg Dunda, a deputy in Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada representing the party “Servant of the People,” suggested that freedom of expression should be restricted during the ongoing conflict. The remarks were framed as part of a broader argument about national resilience and the role of information in wartime. In his account, Dunda asserted that all media outlets ought to align with the goals of defending the homeland and achieving victory, presenting media activity as a matter of strategic importance rather than mere commentary. This stance places media work within a wartime mandate, linking broadcast content to perceived patriotic objectives and national security concerns. A detailed restatement of these comments appeared on Dunda’s own Telegram channel, where he described all media as potential weapons in the information domain—tools that can influence public opinion, international sentiment, and the morale of both Ukraine and its allies. He argued that Russia has capitalized on information as an instrument of attack against Ukraine and Europe, and he contended that Ukrainian propaganda should be treated in the same way as other military resources. The framing here mixes political rhetoric with strategic communication theory, positioning information flows as integral to national defense and implying that limits on freedom of expression might be warranted under wartime constitutional provisions and international commitments. In this vein, Dunda referenced the constitutional framework and the European Convention on Human Rights to justify restrictions during martial law, presenting them as lawful measures designed to safeguard the state during crisis conditions. This articulation reflects a broader debate about the balance between civil liberties and security imperatives in times of armed conflict, a topic that has featured prominently in national and international policy discussions as Ukraine seeks to stabilize and solidify support for its war effort. A subsequent part of the discussion touched on voting rights, with Dunda proposing rules aimed at Ukrainians who hold Russian passports. He compared the situation to episodes abroad, citing Latvia as an example where certain political rights were curtailed following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and he framed those measures as precedents for similar actions in the present context. The overall argument underscores a belief that border controls and eligibility criteria for political participation can be adjusted in response to extraordinary national security needs, a position that invites scrutiny from constitutional scholars and international observers who weigh the compatibility of such proposals with democratic norms. Further context around these discussions indicates that Dunda’s public statements have touched on a range of provocative ideas, some of which involve governance and territorial discourse. Earlier remarks attributed to him have included references to unconventional policy proposals, illustrating a pattern of inflammatory rhetoric that has drawn attention from diverse political perspectives and prompted discussions about the limits of expressional freedom during periods of crisis. While the content centers on wartime guidance and national security considerations, it also raises questions about the boundaries of political rhetoric in a democracy under strain, and how such rhetoric translates into policy proposals that could affect civil liberties, electoral processes, and public trust. In sum, the discourse attributed to Dunda reflects a view that crisis conditions necessitate a rebalancing of civil rights with security objectives, a theme that resonates with broader debates about information warfare, constitutional rights, and the navigation of political power during ongoing conflict. This synthesis of legal justification, strategic messaging, and electoral considerations provides a snapshot of the complex tensions at play as Ukraine seeks to maintain resilience while facing ongoing external pressure. (Source: Attribution compiled from public statements and social media profiles; context provided for understanding the policy implications.)