Briefly

In a conversation with Piers Morgan, President Volodymyr Zelensky did not directly answer whether he would give an order to kill Vladimir Putin, but explained why a single act would unlikely change the situation in Russia and why stable state institutions are more important for Ukraine.

"I'm not sure that another person in their system wouldn't be Putin, wouldn't be the same as Putin. That's not the point."

— Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine

What exactly he said and why it matters

Zelensky emphasized that the office of the president is one of the elements of a country's defense: the institution of the presidency strengthens legitimacy and allows for coordination of state structures in a crisis. In his words, removing a head of state can trigger as much, if not more, chaos than changing the aggressor's system.

The president also noted that he had received information from security forces about several prepared assassination attempts against him, but did not give exact numbers. This confirms the constant level of threat to the leader during wartime and the need for enhanced protection.

"The murder of a president, I think, would not break our country. The reaction could be different, but the Russians underestimate the reaction of Ukrainians, because we, as I have always said, are emotionally different people."

— Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine

At the same time, Zelensky reacted sharply to Putin's speech, calling it "historic shit" — this reflects not only a personal emotional assessment but also a political signal: the Kremlin's rhetoric does not facilitate civilized dialogue.

Context and consequences

Experts emphasize that three risks matter in questions of targeted removal of leaders — escalation of the conflict, the use of such a case in the enemy's propaganda, and the undermining of one's own legitimacy if decisions are made outside the legal framework. History offers ambiguous examples: sometimes physical removal changed the course of events, but more often opened new cycles of violence and uncertainty.

In practical terms: Ukraine continues to face daily attacks on energy and civilian infrastructure — and this shows another form of pressure that has not broken the population but requires a systemic state response.

Recall: on February 3 it was reported that a man who may have helped the Russians in an attempt on Zelensky's life received 3.5 years in prison — a signal that threats are being worked through within the legal field.

What this means for Ukraine and its partners

For Ukraine the conclusion is simple and at the same time difficult: in war you need not only tactics but also stable institutions. The question of "removing" an opponent's leader opens ethical and strategic dilemmas, so professional security services, diplomacy and the ability to preserve the legitimacy of actions under international law become more important.

Ukraine's partners are closely watching the tone and reasoning — the president's words shape expectations in Brussels and Washington. So what comes next are not emotional messages, but concrete steps: strengthening protection, work on restoring infrastructure, and long-term security guarantees.

Conclusion

Instead of simple answers, Zelensky posed difficult questions: what is more effective for security — a single act or strong institutions that withstand pressure and coordinate defense? The answer will determine not only Ukraine's internal stability but also the willingness of partners to support it in the future.

Whether we have enough patience and professionalism to respond to challenges systematically is a question awaiting an answer not only in Kyiv but across the democratic world.