(MOSCOW) – Commentators on Russian state television have openly discussed the possible removal of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a way to accelerate peace talks, reflecting growing frustration in pro Kremlin media over Russia’s failure to secure a decisive victory in Ukraine.
During a recent broadcast of the political talk show The Meeting Place, hosted by Andrey Norkin and Ivan Trushkin, a panel of military analysts, journalists and political scientists debated whether Ukraine’s leadership was the main obstacle to ending the war.
Several guests argued that Zelensky had resisted pressure from former United States President Donald Trump and Western partners to make territorial concessions, portraying him as unwilling to compromise.
Some panellists suggested that Washington had only two ways to influence Kyiv, either by removing Zelensky from power or by persuading him through political and financial pressure. They claimed that Ukraine was more independent than Moscow had expected and that its leadership was not fully controlled by Western governments.
Participants said Zelensky depended heavily on public opinion and civic activists and would face political collapse if he accepted unfavourable terms. They argued that any Ukrainian leader who agreed to territorial losses would be rejected by society.
One contributor questioned Zelensky’s psychological resilience, saying he had embraced his international profile and would not willingly give up power. Others claimed that Europe and the United States were unable to force him to step aside.
Several panellists went further, speculating that his sudden removal or disappearance could speed up negotiations. However, they also acknowledged that such a move could turn him into a symbolic figure and strengthen Ukrainian resistance.
Other guests challenged this view, noting that Ukraine’s armed forces had not been defeated and that the country had not surrendered. They said Ukraine retained the capacity to continue fighting and remained politically stable.
One speaker said Ukrainian society broadly supported ending the war but not on terms that involved surrendering territory. He argued that without a clear military collapse, Kyiv had no reason to accept Moscow’s demands.
The discussion also revealed disagreements over Russia’s own strategy. Some commentators suggested that only a major military escalation could force Ukraine into talks, while others warned that this could further unite Ukrainian society.
Several guests compared the situation to past United States actions in countries such as Iran and Venezuela, arguing that Washington had previously supported leadership changes to pursue its interests.
Later in the programme, one panellist admitted that Russia had underestimated Zelensky, initially portraying him as weak and inexperienced. He said this misjudgement had damaged Moscow’s strategy.
Another participant claimed that Western governments had created a powerful political figure in Zelensky and were now struggling to control him. He warned that if Ukraine survived the war with a strong army and Western backing, it could become a leading political force in Europe.
Some panellists expressed concern that a militarily experienced Ukraine could gain influence within the European Union and shape security policy across the continent.
Towards the end of the discussion, several guests suggested that removing Zelensky and senior members of his administration could open the way for negotiations with a more flexible leadership.
