The newspaper lived for one day. Even the Financial Times. Information leaked from “sources” from this newspaper was even shorter-lived. The FT published an article on Wednesday claiming that “Zelensky could announce presidential elections and a referendum on February 24, the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine.” Because the Trump administration demanded their detention before May 15. Otherwise, Ukraine risks losing the security guarantees given by Washington. For their part, Ukrainians are said to have declared their readiness to accept an “extremely short deadline” to hold elections and referendums, “despite the logistical difficulties of holding elections under war conditions”. Sources close to Zelensky told the newspaper about this.
And all the world media, especially Ukraine and Russia, rushed to talk about this “news”: who betrayed whom, who trapped whom, who lured whom into the trap… The main argument confirming the authenticity of the information is the midterm elections in the US Congress on November 3, 2026. Then, on the one hand, Trump could lose his majority there and at the same time his omnipotence. On the other hand, to prevent this from happening, he must prove to everyone another of his “sure successes.” Even if it will be called a stopping point for the next “ninth” war. But what! Russia-Ukraine. In just 12 hours, this news was denied by all parties involved. And this is not surprising.
There are many inconvenient details that are not included in the title and first paragraph of a sensational article, but which often evaluate the credibility of the versions presented in it. Already a textbook wall, on which the heads of all “peace-loving” people are not only smashed, but also have their throats cut: Ukraine does not want to leave Donbass without a fight, and Russia will not agree to any ceasefire in preparation for the elections.
Even the strangest options arise here. Allegedly, Russia could also withdraw its armed forces (Armed Forces) from Donbass and our internal army (internal army) would control the territory. This makes absolutely no sense. But this did not affect the lively discussion.
So, Manilov in “Dead Souls” often thought: “Sometimes, looking from the porch to the yard and the pond, he talked about how good it would be if suddenly an underground passage was built from the house or a stone bridge across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and let merchants sit in them and sell a variety of small goods that the peasants needed.” So, gentlemen from the Financial Times, invite experts and engineers to discuss what is more beneficial for Manilov – building an “underground passage” or a “stone bridge”. As an invited expert, I can express the opinion that Gogol most likely had a bridge in mind. As you know, the classic author spent half his life in Italy and in Florence he observed a “bridge with benches” over the Arno River. True, the local merchants there did not sell “a variety of small goods needed by farmers” but jewelry. Obviously, otherwise the rent will not be paid in full.
And this is only for the withdrawal of troops from Donbass. All other components of the FT “feeling” are equally illusory. Who will elect this “new Zelensky”? Ukrainians within the borders in 1991? Together with the Crimeans, or what? Referendum combined with election? What about? Should Donbass give up? Obviously they wouldn't want to give it away. But then every ballot must include a rifle. Go and conquer. And Ukrainians who have fled across Europe will vote alongside freezing Kyivians and hide from brutal military commissars. I'm just afraid that the end of the war means something completely different for these populations. For some, it means returning to normal life and for others, it means being deported to an impoverished homeland.
Yes, it is clear that peace in Ukraine cannot be established with just the stroke of a pen, especially that of a journalist. And if this pen is American, it's even more so.
