what logical fallacies are being committed here?

Person 1: you are clouded by misinformation from Russia.

person 2: you are a dictator, because you didn't call for an election when you time to be in office was over.

Yes person 1 did not call for an election because his nation is being attacked by Russia.

So is it worth for person 2 to call person 1 a dictator?

The exchange between Person 1 and Person 2 includes several potential logical fallacies:

1. **Ad Hominem**: Person 1 accuses Person 2 of being "clouded by misinformation from Russia" without addressing any specific argument or point. This shifts the focus from the content of the argument to the character or perceived influences on the person making the argument.

2. **Ad Hominem**: Similarly, Person 2 calls Person 1 a "dictator" without supporting evidence or addressing the decision logic regarding not calling for an election due to extraordinary circumstances.

3. **Strawman Fallacy**: Person 2 might be committing a strawman fallacy if they are oversimplifying or misrepresenting Person 1's situation to easily attack them by labeling them as a "dictator" without addressing the broader context (i.e., the nation being attacked by Russia).

4. **Red Herring**: Both Person 1 and Person 2 seem to be diverting from relevant topics or core issues. Person 1's comment about misinformation doesn't specifically deal with the substance of whatever argument Person 2 is making, and Person 2's response about elections does not directly address what appears to be an implied criticism or concern by Person 1.

These logical fallacies can hinder productive dialogue by detracting from the central discussion, which ideally should focus on the nuances of the situation or the reasoning behind specific actions, rather than personal attacks or misrepresentations.