I worked in the energy+mineral intelligence domain developing work that was subscribed to by investors and later sold to S&P (of the index).
The "is it factual" rule here is simpler than you may think* - in your example, can it be verified by multiple credible sources that
* Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said "as quoted", and that
* A senior Ukrainian intelligence official said "as quoted"
If so then it's fine to report that .. it's factual that they made the statements, whether what they said is also true is a seperate matter that may or may not be addressed in another reported snippet.
In the aggragator case here they're not even making the claim that "Volodymyr Zelenskyy said {X}" .. instead they are asserting as fact that "Politico reported that {Y}" .. which can be verified by a secure link to the Politico source.
* Until recently ...
Today, of course, there's highly credible in appearence generated video of public figures saying things they never said - this is the current challenge.
The means to address that is to chain reported news to sources and develop better tools to probe that chain for BS. A work in progress.
