When the President Says “As It Is”: Profanity Has Become the Norm for Ukraine’s Political Leaders
For more than three hours, Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with the American interviewer Lex Friedman in the format of a podcast, which instantly became an information explosion. The President of Ukraine openly and emotionally shared his thoughts about the war, international support and the challenges that Ukraine faces in confronting the aggressor. But not only the content of the conversation attracted attention – the form caused the greatest resonance. The profanity used by Zelenskyi caused a violent reaction in Ukrainian society, where opinions on its appropriateness were sharply divided. This podcast became not just an interview, but a kind of mirror that reflected the president’s new style of communication, causing both support and sharp criticism.
Three hours of candor: Zelensky on Lex Friedman’s podcast
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi became the hero of a more than three-hour podcast by the famous American interviewer Lex Friedman. In this long conversation, which became an important event for both the international community and Ukraine, Zelensky recalled the first days of full-scale war, shared his vision of a just peace, spoke about the origins of Russian aggression and emphasized his readiness to cooperate with partners, including with the new administration of Donald Trump, to establish a lasting peace. In addition, he admitted for the first time that he spoke with Oleksandr Lukashenko in the first days of the war, and he apologized for the strikes on Ukraine.
The President of Ukraine emphasized that the Russian army is killing Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, destroying their homes and lives. Zelensky emphasized that his disdain is not aimed at the Russian language, but at those who use it as a pretext for war. He also denied widespread Russian propaganda about banning the Russian language in Ukraine, noting that there are Russian-speaking citizens in the country, but “disdain for the Russian language in Ukraine arose because of the actions of the Russians.”
It should be noted that Oleksiy Friedman, who became known as Lex Friedman, is an American computer scientist, artificial intelligence researcher and host of a popular podcast. He was born in Tajikistan, grew up in Moscow, but has Ukrainian roots. In 1994, when Lex was 11 years old, his family immigrated to the United States. He started his podcast in 2018, becoming one of the most famous interviewers in the world. Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Benjamin Netanyahu have participated in his programs. The interview with Zelensky became another important episode of his project.
Lex Friedman called the meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky “a special moment in his life” and emphasized that his goal was “to promote peace.” Friedman expressed his belief that Presidents Zelensky, Putin and Trump should meet after January 20 this year to start negotiations on a ceasefire, security guarantees and long-term peace. These are the ideas discussed during the podcast. The conversation with Zelensky became not only a way to convey Ukraine’s position to the international community, but also caused a wide resonance due to the frankness and emotionality of the president.
Zelensky without filters: emotions and profanity
During an interview with American podcaster Lex Friedman, Volodymyr Zelenskyi openly and emotionally spoke about what he was thinking. However, it was not only the substantive part of the interview that caused the greatest resonance, but also his manner of speaking, because Zelenskyi used obscene language. So, for example, when Zelensky touched on the topic of pre-war promises from the US and Western countries, he directly stated that in his appeals to Western leaders, he asked them for two things: strengthening Ukraine with weapons and introducing sanctions that could stop the aggressor even before the start of the war .
“I did not ask for evidence or explanations. I said: if you are sure, if you know that there will be an invasion, act. Enable sanctions, prevent, make him [Putin] afraid. You don’t have to wait for him to come and kill and destroy.” Zelenskyi said.
He ended his sentence with an emotional statement: “That’s bullshit, I’m sorry” — which became one of the podcast’s most quotable moments.
It should be noted that this is not the first time that Zelensky has resorted to this form of expression. In 2023, during a broadcast on NBC News, he also spoke sharply against Putin, using profanity. His words instantly went viral on social networks, sparking heated discussions. Then the president emphasized that Ukraine will never agree to hand over its territories to terrorists and will continue the struggle for freedom.
“War takes the best of us: our heroes, men, women, children. But we are not ready to cede freedom to this [expletive] terrorist Putin.” Zelensky said.
An equally drastic case occurred in December 2024, when Zelensky publicly called Putin a “dobbo***” in response to his idea of an “experiment with Oreshnik.” These words of the president also became a loud information drive, but at the same time reflected the level of indignation and contempt for the Kremlin’s aggressive policy.
Zelenskyi’s statements caused different reactions both in Ukrainian society and international media. Part of the public, especially in Ukraine, perceived this as a manifestation of sincerity, emotionality and directness, which corresponds to the realities of war. Supporters of Zelensky emphasized that his words clearly convey anger and despair at the brutality of Russian aggression and the sometimes indecisiveness of Western partners. At the same time, criticism of him for using profanity was focused on the question of the appropriateness of such a manner of speaking for the president. Some opponents emphasized that such rhetoric is unacceptable for the head of state. Some saw in this frankness the risk of losing the diplomatic tone, which could affect the perception of Ukraine in the international arena. Critics also said that such rhetoric, however emotional, could be perceived as a breach of etiquette, unbecoming of a leader of a state seeking global support. At the same time, CNBC drew attention to the president’s manner of speaking, calling his language “the rudeness of a sailor.”
In addition, Zelensky was criticized not only for using obscene language, but also for the issues he raised and interpreted in the interview. Thus, the ABC channel focused on the fact that the president did not thank Joe Biden for the large-scale aid to Ukraine, which seemed inappropriate given the context of the conversation. Along with this, the press secretary of the President of Belarus Natalya Eismont denied the information that Oleksandr Lukashenko apologized to Volodymyr Zelenskyi during a telephone conversation that took place at the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
However, Zelenskyi’s communications advisor Dmytro Lytvyn defends the president’s position, explaining his words as sincerity and truthfulness.
“The president said what he felt. It was emotional, but honest.” Lytvyn noted.
According to him, despite the sharp form of speech, Zelenskyi focuses on the most important thing — on the terrible consequences of the war and the need to consolidate efforts to end it. The president’s words are not just emotions, but the cry of the soul, which reflects the tragedy of the people of Ukraine and calls on the international community to act decisively to stop the Russian Federation.
Mat as a norm: the degradation of political etiquette in Ukraine
The public use of obscene language is gradually becoming commonplace among Ukrainian politicians, although it continues to cause scandals and outrage. Politicians not only allow themselves rude words in private conversations, but more and more often do it openly in the public space, which gives rise to discussions about the culture of communication in power. One gets the impression that for some representatives of the political elite, the discussion of complex issues of state administration and international politics is not without a checkmate.
Historically, in Ukraine, obscene language from the mouths of politicians was mostly seen as curiosities. Leonid Kuchma, for example, became the hero of the famous “Melnichenko films”, where he did not hesitate to use the entire arsenal of obscene language during discussions. Viktor Yanukovych in Korosten publicly sent a pensioner three letters when he was outraged by his language policy. During the conflict with Vadym Novinsky, Petro Poroshenko uttered the famous “bitch, you’re Orthodox”, which quickly became a meme. However, at that time these cases were the exception rather than the rule.
With the advent of the modern government, the situation has fundamentally changed. Politicians who positioned themselves as “simple guys” also brought “simple language” to power. Even before the presidency, Volodymyr Zelensky initiated a flash mob “go to hell” addressed to Oleh Barny for his rudeness with journalists. Already in the position of president, he called officials “robbers”, and representatives of his political power were distinguished by such expressions as “ship pines” (regarding women). Chats of “Servants of the People”, which from time to time become the property of the media, demonstrate that rude language is not just emotions, but part of the party’s internal culture of communication. And this applies not only to representatives of this party.
Examples of mat use in public space are becoming more and more frequent. Thus, Oleksiy Kucherenko called Maksym Tkachenko a “underage clown”, and he threatened to checkmate him in return. Such a conversation between two people’s deputies shows that the level of political discussion is increasingly degrading. The case with Oleksiy Arestovych (at that time adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine), who in response to a Facebook user’s request to speak the state language, sent him three letters was also illustrative. Although the publication was deleted, there was no apology or explanation from Arestovych. David Arahamia, defending his colleague, stated that this is part of the “new network ethics”.
But the “network ethics” of politicians often borders on contempt for society. The use of a mat in public space shows not only the loss of self-control, but also the inability of politicians to constructively and culturally resolve conflicts. Emotional rudeness, although it looks like “sincerity”, shows aggression and a desire to humiliate the opponent, rather than find a compromise.
It should be noted that in our country there were attempts to legislate the use of obscene language in public space, but they failed. Olga Bogomolets’ draft law No. 10414 “On combating slander” or, as it was popularly called, “the law on dematucation”, was never adopted. In addition, the “Servant of the People” faction, which positioned itself as a new type of political force, at one time promised to develop a code of deputy ethics that would regulate such manifestations. However, these plans remained unrealized. As a result, profanity, aggressive rhetoric and open insults continue to shape the face of Ukrainian politics, further destroying ethical standards and undermining trust in the authorities.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian political discourse in recent years has increasingly taken on crude forms, and obscene language has become an almost integral part of the public communication of some politicians. At the same time, leaders in the use of obscene language were and remain figures such as Boris Filatov, Gennadiy Kernes, Gennadiy Moskal, and Arsen Avakov. One of the main “kings of checkmate” was People’s Deputy of the III, IV and VII convocations Oleksandr Volkov. A vivid example is also People’s Deputy Oleksandr Dubinsky, who openly uses abusive words in his speeches and appeals to citizens. This approach, according to Dubinsky himself and his supporters, reflects “sincerity” and “truthfulness”, demonstrating the absence of censorship and closeness to ordinary people.
This style of communication is based on an attempt to create the image of “your guy”, who is not afraid to express himself directly and rudely, and thus allegedly becomes closer to the people. Cursing words in the statements of politicians appeal to a certain part of the electorate – people disappointed in the traditional political elite, tired of official rhetoric and “excessive conventions”. This is perceived positively by an audience that is not burdened with deep education or in a state of despair.
Modern technology and social networks, in particular the Instagram and YouTube platforms, have become key tools for promoting such rhetoric. Politicians try to create the impression that they speak to citizens personally, in “their language”, like bloggers, which contributes to the formation of the illusion of closeness. This approach allows bypassing official frameworks and avoiding complex formal formulations, which is especially attractive to a part of the audience.
Mat as poison: the destruction of culture, morality, and genetics
Native vocabulary has always existed in human society, but its use had clear boundaries, depending on social groups. Commoners traditionally communicated with rude words without any moral pressure, but merchants avoided cursing in order not to lose their customers. The intelligentsia, on the other hand, perceived mat as something foreign to their world, seeing in words power and meaning that should not be reduced to rudeness. However, modernity has changed everything: cursing has become the language of everyone and everywhere.
It is noteworthy that even a few decades ago, the use of profanity was considered a male habit. Women who allowed themselves such statements were rare and usually belonged to the marginalized strata of society. Today, the situation has fundamentally changed. Swearing has become a universal language used by everyone from the elderly and children to outwardly intelligent men and women. Profanity and street slang have become so ingrained in everyday life that it seems that a large part of society has lost the ability to express themselves in ordinary language. In the presence of women, children, and elderly people, checkmate no longer causes shock. This trend indicates significant changes in the culture of communication, where the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable are gradually blurred, and the literary language loses its role as a tool of respect and ethics.
However, what started as a way to express emotions now threatens society at all levels. Modern politicians increasingly indulge in abusive language, justifying it with the “truth of life” and the desire to “be closer to the people.” This is a game on emotions that resonates with a part of the electorate, disappointed in traditional forms of political communication. Cursing creates the illusion of sincerity, but what is behind this language? And what price does society pay for it?
Scientists have long proven that words have the power not only to shape thoughts, but also to influence a person’s physical condition. Research shows that swear words can cause a mutagenic effect similar to the effect of radiation. DNA molecules, which are responsible for the preservation and transmission of genetic information, respond to the sound vibrations of human speech. If these fluctuations are of a negative nature, the DNA undergoes changes that can be transmitted to subsequent generations.
Every word has its own vibration, and cursing creates destructive frequencies that affect the cells of the human body. Chromosomes containing genetic information begin to change their structure. This can lead to serious physical and mental illnesses, because every swear word is not just rudeness, but a destructive wave that changes you and your children. According to the scientists’ conclusions, this “mutagenic effect” accumulates and can be called a “self-destruction program.” It is the linguistic equivalent of a toxic substance that we consume every day without even realizing it.
Political discourse, saturated with abuse, is a reflection of the general degradation of culture in Ukrainian society. At a time when profanity from our front line military can be excused due to stress and constant nervous tension, the politicians who are the face of the nation have no excuse. Their words and behavior should be an example for people, but instead they undermine ethical standards.
The modern world is moving to the point where cursing is gradually becoming a part of the generally accepted norm in our country. To understand why this is happening, it is enough to pay attention to the trends in social networks and various platforms. The videos, filled with profanity, scandalous statements and provocative behavior, gather millions of views, creating a false impression that this manner of communication is the norm. In turn, politicians, striving to meet popular trends, increasingly adopt this style of behavior, focusing not on ethics or social standards, but on the desire to gain the attention of a wide audience. As a result, the public discussion loses its depth and seriousness, turning into a circus show, where the main “highlight” is cursing. At the same time, popular films and humorous programs also contributed to this process. They contributed to the legitimization of swear words, turning them from a taboo into an element of popular culture. Unfortunately, this is no longer just a temporary phenomenon, but a trend that is increasingly absorbing society.
The price of such a “language revolution” is too high. Obscene words of politicians not only destroys the culture of communication, it creates a new norm, where aggression becomes a synonym of strength, and rudeness – truthfulness. This approach creates a new generation for which morality and ethics become empty words. If the current trend continues, it is likely that rudeness and profanity will become part of the official rhetoric even at the highest levels of government. Meetings of the government or speeches of deputies risk turning into performances from the “street”, where humiliating insults and insults will be heard instead of meaningful discussions. This will finally destroy the political culture, which now almost does not exist. Freedom of speech should be based on responsibility, not chaos. If the leaders of the country are not able to control their own language and emotions, then can they effectively manage the state? Now we are losing much more than ethics – we are losing the moral foundation on which the future of our country must be built.
