And what would getting rid of Zelensky do ?
He's not really in charge of anything, he can be easily replaced, and his demise would only turn him into a martyr and re-galvanize the (already tired) west.
Zelensky running things is an benefit to Russia. I mean, sure, replacing him up until 2 years ago with someone who could have avoided war, if that were a viable option, would make sense. But once war is declared, the guy is nuts and other than getting expensive weaponry that has prolonged the conflict, he has made every major strategic decision poorly. He doesn't behave logically and I've never heard of anyone in history handling warfare the way he does (a combination of unrestricted emotion and complete lack of strategic vision, insisting on insane goals instead of suing for peace or making proposals that have any chance of success). The Ukraine attitude towards their enemy can only be described as comic book silliness.
If he were removed, say, in a coup, there would be immediate calls for a truce with Russia. If the conflict continues, Russia stands to gain Odessa and perhaps more. Not that Russia wanted any of this, but blood has been spilled and as long as this continues, the more the NATO allies suffer (big news that Germany has been in economic decline for 4 quarters now). Russia is not likely to attack these enemies like Germany, UK, USA, so this is one of the best ways to hurt them, without being directly blamed. The longer the war continues, the more NATO enemies suffer. And we are even seeing the acceleration of the end of the Petrodollar, which will be when America ceases to operate globally.
The only thing that makes me question this "Zelensky doesn't really run things" line is Putin's recent remark in the Tucker interview that of course Z runs things, he is the leader of the country and final authority rests with him. I don't know whether that was big brained propaganda from Putin, or whether he meant it as true, or merely that he runs things to the degree any one man can run anything in a "democracy." But, I think we all agree Zelensky could negotiate a truce tomorrow.
Self-righteous leftists insisting on everyone calling the towns "Kiiv" or "Kharkiv", or "Zaporizhzhia", etc. instead of the long-standing normal Anglicised names drive me crazy. These same people would expect me to pronounce Paris with a French accent, or call it Venezia or Firenze, or München, in the middle of an English sentence.
They don't expect that.
If they were consistent, calling the names of places the way people actually call them, that would be normal and fine.
But ask them what the capital of Berlin is and you're not going to get any sort of Deutchland answer from them.
They only do it as a form of lying, the same way they will pretend that men can become women and vice versa but then simultaneously won't believe women and men are the two opposite genders (of not just humans but all species).
The essense of evil is not that it tries to "beat" goodness, or have any sort of consistent strategy to win; it merely opposes Beauty, Truth, and Goodness, in this case, by lying.
I've always been annoyed by this American predilection for renaming things. I don't think other cultures do that. Mexicans might call it "Nueva York" but the place name is "York" and they leave it alone, with "new" just being the adjective modifier. People around the world will recognize when I talk about "Atlanta" as an airport I departed from or "Washington" as the capital of the USA. They don't try to halfheartedly translate the syllables into the local dialect. That said, I haven't looked into the historical pronunciation of KEEV or asked my Russian friends. I just assumed the renaming is all fake and gay, or they are just using the rules of Ukrainian, a fake new language that was recently invented. If we have indeed been mispronouncing KEEV all these years (Chicken Kiev?) then they are just picking an opportunistic time to lie and pretend they value local culture and language.