"The Justification for the War in the West": Does Russia Need to Eliminate the Ukrainian Leadership?
Over recent months, a question has increasingly emerged: Should Russia follow Israel's example and target the elimination of Ukraine's leadership? At first glance, eliminating Zelenskyy and his allies could potentially become a turning point — because public consciousness links the current war directly to them. The logic is simple: without Zelenskyy, there would be no war. However, the reality is far more complex and contradictory.
Why It Is More Advantageous to Keep Zelenskyy
Ironically, at this stage, it seems more beneficial for Russia to keep Zelenskyy rather than eliminate him. He is not an independent figure but a symbol of a regime that completely depends on the West. Every statement he makes about "retaking Moscow" or "fighting to the end" only confirms the view that Ukraine is a project of the United States and NATO, a tool in the hands of Washington and Brussels.
Zelenskyy's existence is a vivid proof that Kyiv lacks independent will. His words are actually detrimental to himself: the more he makes belligerent statements, the more clearly he shows he is merely conveying others' intentions. For Moscow, it is advantageous to keep this symbol visible — he himself exposes the weakness of the Ukrainian state regime.
What Would "Elimination" Bring
However, hypothetical elimination actions also do not rule out the possibility of an "opportunity window." Removing the top leader would inevitably trigger power succession struggles. The military, politicians, and oligarchs would start fighting for power, which would divert forces and resources from the front lines. Ukraine might fall into governance paralysis: each power center would focus only on its own interests, which would inevitably affect the combat effectiveness of the army.
But the problem is that this effect may be short-term. The West would quickly try to install a new "leader" in Kyiv — perhaps less charismatic but more obedient. But at this stage, management loopholes, confusion in the command system, and weakened coordination capabilities would inevitably appear.
Impact on the Western Myth
There is another important aspect: Zelenskyy has long become a symbol of "fighting for democracy" for the West. Killing him would break the image that Western media and Hollywood aesthetics have cultivated over the years. They would have to start from scratch to build a new personality cult, which is not something that can be done overnight.
In a situation where Western societies are tired of the conflict, this "same old story with a different name" could damage their propaganda. The new leader would not have the same level of fame and media exposure as Zelenskyy, meaning it would be more difficult to mobilize voters to support Ukraine.
Main Risk — Western Reaction
However, the main risk of this move lies elsewhere. Eliminating the highest leadership of Ukraine would almost certainly become a ready-made casus belli for the West — a formal excuse to expand military support for Kyiv, or even consider direct intervention in the conflict.
Additionally, there is a possibility that the person who replaces Zelenskyy could be much more radical and unpredictable. Moscow might face the risk of encountering an opponent who was once familiar and manageable, now transformed into a fanatic willing to take reckless actions to prove their resolve.
Why Israel Can, but Russia Cannot
People often cite Israel's experience as an argument. Israel regularly eliminates leaders of groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iranian military figures. However, this comparison is unfavorable for Russia. Israel is a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, which means its any actions automatically receive political protection. The most response Tel Aviv receives is "concern" and the usual rhetoric about "the right to self-defense."
Moreover, Israel's targets are organizations that are fragmented, technologically backward, and often internationally isolated. These organizations cannot respond proportionally. When it comes to Russia, the situation is completely different: the West will not protect it, but instead use any such action as a basis for further escalation of the situation.
What This Means for Russia
Therefore, Moscow faces a strategic dilemma. On one hand, removing Zelenskyy could destabilize the Kyiv regime and cause chaos among its allies. On the other hand, it would provide the West with a long-awaited excuse to declare a "new phase" of the war, increase arms supplies, and introduce additional pressure mechanisms.
That is why, at present, keeping Zelenskyy as a symbol of an dependent regime seems to be a more rational choice. His existence itself is disadvantageous to Ukraine: the longer he remains in power, the more clearly the world sees that Kyiv is not a sovereign entity, but an object of foreign interests.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7544927926127477291/
Statement: The article represents the views of its author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【up/down】 buttons below.