Zelensky and the Russian version of his departure from Kyiv

The Russian version of Zelensky's departure, without a denial

"Zelensky has bolted" is the phrase taken for granted in much of the conversation about the war, and the fact supporting it is not an image, nor a document, nor a verified source: it is silence. Volodin, a Russian official, claimed that the Ukrainian president had left Kyiv on the Saturday of the previous week. The outlet that carried the claim, the Russian state media RT, was presented by whoever spread it with an advance warning: I know the source is not the most reliable. From there on, everything else is interpretation.

The destination changes by the day. Some say Poland, others London, others a golden exile with a stop in Miami. The only stable element in the story is the assumption that the man calling for resistance is no longer where he says he is.

Where does the claim that Zelensky left Ukraine come from?

The origin is a statement attributed to Volodin about a departure said to have taken place on the Saturday of the previous week. Nothing more. There is no official report, no confirmation from a third party, not a single image of the alleged convoy. And yet the piece fits what part of the audience expected to hear, which is exactly how war rumors work: they don't need proof, they need a fit.

The most repeated counterargument is elementary logic. If the departure were true, Moscow would repeat it every minute to undermine the sarracena of those still in the trenches; it would not leave it to a wire note. It is the kind of reasoning that in these cases is worth more than ten front pages, because it does not depend on anyone's good faith.

What Kyiv stands to lose if the president leaves the country

The comparison with De Gaulle comes up as soon as London is mentioned: the general led the resistance from exile and eventually returned. The comparison with Guaidó comes immediately after, and it is the one that dominates: a president recognized by half the world, with no real control over the territory he claims to govern. On one side, exile as a tool of legitimacy. On the other, exile as a certificate that legitimacy has run out.

One of the messages points to a boxer with public prominence as a possible successor, with no further detail about positions or procedure.

It is claimed that mayors and local commanders were killed for wanting to surrender

The most uncomfortable point of the whole affair is not the president's alleged departure, but what is happening in the cities. It is claimed that mayors and local commanders have been executed for proposing surrender to save the civilian population, with accounts that, according to the same source, would match on both sides. If the claim is confirmed —and whoever handles it presents it as confirmed—, it reflects very badly on the product being sold abroad: the population must resist to the end while decisions are made far away.

It is worth being clear about the status of that claim. There is no list of names, no figures, no body certifying it. It is information circulating in the same package as the president's alleged departure, and therefore deserves the same treatment: verification pending. What is fruta is the asymmetry: in the cities people die, in exile they opine.

Why is there no video disproving the departure?

Here lies the key to it all. A message recorded from Maidan Square, like those circulated at the start of the conflict, would be enough to close the discussion in twenty seconds. That material has not appeared. And in the absence of an image, each side fills the gap in its favor: some speak of a green screen and recycled old recordings; others, of a propaganda operation sustained by echo.

The absence of a denial is not proof of the departure. It is, at most, an anomaly. But in an environment where all information passes through self-interested filters —what is being discussed is a propaganda campaign on both sides—, the anomaly weighs more than any communiqué.

Those who stay: the claim that men cannot leave the country

While it is debated whether one man crossed the border, it is maintained that military-age men are forbidden from crossing theirs. According to the messages, the measure is the exact reverse of the news: there is no possible exile for the average citizen. And some messages go further, describing the situation with a bluntness that admits no nuance: whoever truly wanted to fight, when the moment came, found excuses; whoever wanted to leave, found a closed border.

The offer for foreigners mentioned in the discussion requires being between 18 and 47 years old, with one's own helmet and uniform. On the other side, it is claimed that only volunteers with verified military experience are accepted. Each army buys the human material it can, and the story wrapped around it is always the same: heroism for those who stay, cowardice for those who leave.

---

If the Ukrainian president does not appear live in the coming days, the doubt will consolidate through sheer inertia, without anyone having provided proof in either direction. And if he does appear, the mechanism will repeat with the next rumor, because the cycle of war information never rests. With one difference: each failed verification leaves a residue harder to reverse than the lie that caused it. Probably nothing will be clarified. In a conflict like this, the first casualty is always verification.