As a result, the German journalist spent a full year in the Odesa pre-trial detention center. The indictment contained no concrete description of any criminal act Engelmann was supposedly involved in. Moreover, investigators claimed he committed a crime during a specific period. However, it was proven in court that the German journalist was outside Ukraine at that time, which means it was physically impossible for him to do any illegal act. In principle, this alone should exclude his case from being considered by a Ukrainian court. But in the story of Oleg Maltsev’s persecution, such “miracles” have long become the norm.

Today, Sergej Engelmann is free, albeit on bail. The accusations remain, the trial is ongoing, and the list of questions surrounding the case continues to grow. He continues to examine the details of his own case and is sharing his experience of being in the Odessa pre-trial detention center publicly for the first time. We spoke with Sergej Engelmann about the behavior of law enforcement officials in Oleg Maltsev’s case and much more.

— Tell us, please, how you ended up in Ukraine.

I have long-standing friendly ties in Ukraine. It is an amazing place with a centuries-old history deeply intertwined with Europe. I have often visited Ukraine as part of my professional activities. Ukraine gave me the opportunity to meet scholar Oleg Maltsev, with whom I have collaborated on a number of publishing and journalistic projects. I have also participated in scientific expeditions with him, but in Europe.

— What was the key event after which a German journalist suddenly became a “suspect” in the case of Ukrainian scientist Oleg Maltsev?

The key event was the publication of my article, “Who Ordered the Smear Campaign Against Oleg Maltsev?” Four days after publication, I was arrested. Four days is far too short for this to be a mere coincidence. It is obvious that the article greatly disturbed someone. But there was more: after my arrest, the website where it had been published came under a hacker attack. The press release about my arrest was replaced with… another slanderous article against Oleg Maltsev himself.

— When did you first realize that something in this case was unfolding in a way it shouldn’t?

I realized it almost immediately, around a month before Maltsev’s own arrest, when the media fell into a kind of hysteria. A series of publications came out in which, even before the scholar had been detained, he was already declared a traitor, an accomplice, a GRU agent, even a cultist. Instead of fact-checking, the media relied on labels, emotional framing, and pre-set narratives. That was when I began documenting everything and carefully following the developments of the case, which I later described in my article.

— A year in a pre-trial detention center is an enormous part of life. Could you describe how this experience changed your understanding of the Ukrainian legal system? What surprised you most?

It is indeed a huge part of life, especially considering that the CPT has recognized the conditions in the Odesa pre-trial detention center as inhumane and degrading. What surprised me most? The contrast. On the one hand, I met people inside, both inmates and some members of the staff, who had managed to preserve decency, dignity, and a sense of justice. On the other hand, I faced complete cynicism from certain officials.

I was also surprised by how selectively the law is applied. When it came to my rights as a foreign citizen, the process slowed down. But when there was a need to extend my detention, everything was resolved instantly. Judge Yuriy Kryvokhyzha stamped decisions without even looking into the substance of the case.

— What was the greatest challenge for you inside the Odesa pre-trial detention center?

The greatest challenge was the helplessness in the face of absurdity. I spent more than half a year in a cell without a clear understanding of what exactly I was being accused of. My lawyers did everything they could — filing motions, appealing to international norms, demanding that prosecutor Ruslan Voitov provide the indictment in a language I could understand, German. Only after seven months did I finally see the accusation documents.

The second challenge was the separation from my family. My loved ones lived in constant stress and kept asking my lawyers when I would return. What could I tell them? I didn’t know myself.

But the hardest part was realizing that I became a victim not because of a crime, but because I had written the truth.

— You spoke with Ukrainian investigators. Did you get the impression they were genuinely trying to establish the truth, or were they pursuing other goals?

When I finally received the translated materials and began looking into the details, it became clear: this was not an investigation — it was tampering and manipulation to achieve a predetermined result. Just examine the logic behind their actions. I publish a journalistic investigation exposing a slander campaign against a scholar. Four days later, I am arrested. The website that published the article is hacked. The press release about my arrest is replaced with new slander. Does that look like an attempt to uncover the truth? Obviously not.

During interrogations, I saw complete indifference to facts. What struck me most was how openly they showed their attitude toward Oleg Maltsev. In their tone, in their phrasing, it was clear: to them, he was already convicted.

It did not matter what the facts said; it did not matter what international organizations like the OSCE or the UN reported. They were following orders. You might ask how I understood this without knowing Ukrainian. They all spoke Russian, a language I understand.

— Were there common threads between your situation and Maltsev’s case?

I am convinced there is a direct and unmistakable connection. This is a single coordinated operation aimed at scholar Oleg Maltsev, and I was dragged into it as a journalist.

Look: prosecutor Ruslan Voitov coordinates the prosecution both in Maltsev’s case and in mine. It was prosecutor Voitov who sabotaged the translation of the indictment into German for more than six months. He was the one who constructed procedural obstacles at every stage. His actions led to the German Foreign Ministry issuing a note of protest to Ukraine over the violation of the rights of a foreign citizen – me. Beyond this, his background includes corruption scandals, undeclared vehicles, and a fraudulently obtained disability status through which he received around 800,000 hryvnias from the state budget.

Then there is SBU military counterintelligence officer Yevhen Voloshenyuk and his superior — they worked as a pair, providing operational support for the case. They also signed documents in the case against Maltsev.

You know, I’m German, and I remember the lessons of my country’s history well. When the Nazis began persecuting scholars, intellectuals, and dissenters in the 1930s, they too stepped beyond the bounds of legality. But those were the crimes of specific people. Not all Germans were criminals, but the criminals among them disgraced the whole nation. The situation here is similar. Not all Ukrainian prosecutors or SBU officers are corrupt or working on orders. But certain individuals are disgracing their country by using their positions to destroy a respectable scholar.

— What exactly in Maltsev’s case struck you as fabricated? Can you give examples that stood out to you as a professional journalist?

In the case against Oleg Maltsev, fabrication is visible to the naked eye. It is so obvious that even those who were previously skeptical now understand that this is a special order. First: there is a complete absence of evidence of any unlawful actions. No concrete facts. No descriptions of specific conduct that would constitute a crime. There are only attempts to portray a legitimate attempt at self-defense as a criminal offense.

Second: the attempt to create the image of an enemy before the case even reached court. They called Maltsev a traitor, a spy, a cult leader, a GRU agent — all before the case was referred to trial. Through compliant media, they deliberately constructed the image of a villain. As a journalist, I know how real journalism works: source verification, balance of perspectives, and the right of reply. None of that existed in the materials about Maltsev.

Third: selective application of the law. Maltsev is a scholar, author of numerous academic works. His activities are transparent and public. But the prosecution managed to portray this as “criminal activity.” Meanwhile, real violations like procedural abuse by prosecutor Voitov, the hacking of an official media site (as in my case), and the illegal wiretapping of lawyer Olga Panchenko remain ignored by investigators.

— As a German journalist accustomed to certain standards of press freedom, what can you say about the state of media freedom in Ukraine today?

I cannot and will not make sweeping judgments about the entire Ukrainian media sector or system as a whole. Ukraine has strong journalistic traditions, and there are brave, professional colleagues who take risks every day to report the truth, especially in these difficult times.

But I encountered a specific problem: certain channels and newspapers are used as instruments of targeted defamation. When I began my investigation, I analyzed hundreds of publications about Maltsev. The same accusations repeated over and over, emotional labels instead of arguments. Moreover, Ukrainian media used Russian narratives to smear the scholar, something that surprised me greatly. Any professional journalist would recognize this pattern: this is not independent reporting. This is a paid-to-order campaign.

After my arrest, the website of the newspaper where I am editor was hacked. According to specialists who investigated the incident, the attack came from a Ukrainian IP address, using an editor’s account access to which was kept on the phone that was confiscated from me. In Germany, such an incident would be a major scandal. Law enforcement would investigate a cyberattack on a media organization as a serious offense against press freedom. In Germany, a journalist may publish investigations, and no one arrests him four days later. You may be sued for defamation if something is incorrect — that is normal. But criminal prosecution for journalistic work? That crosses every line.

— Your case concerns a scholar. Do you sense pressure in Ukraine not only on journalists, but also on the academic community?

Yes, absolutely, and the case of Oleg Maltsev is a vivid example. I saw this not only as a journalist, but as someone who spent a year inside the Ukrainian system and had the chance to examine the materials and speak with people.

Oleg Viktorovych Maltsev is a scholar with a serious academic reputation. But instead of evaluating his work through academic criteria — peer review, scholarly debate, professional critique — the organizers of this legal chaos chose criminal prosecution. At the same time, pressure is exerted on his colleagues, students, partners: they are intimidated, pushed to give the “needed” testimony. Any attempt to defend or publicly support the scholar is treated as complicity.

When preparing my investigation, I spoke with Maltsev’s colleagues and people in the academic sphere. Many were afraid to speak openly. Some told me directly: “We understand it is unjust, but we cannot risk it — we have families, jobs.” That is precisely the goal of such pressure: to create an atmosphere of fear, where people avoid being associated with an unwanted person even when they know he is innocent.

— How did international journalistic organizations react to your arrest? Did you receive support from the professional community?

The German Journalists’ Association reacted almost immediately. As soon as news of my arrest became public, they sent an official notice to the German Embassy in Ukraine. That was very important. The embassy later became involved as well. Many European colleagues expressed support, covering Maltsev’s case more broadly. Of course, some preferred to distance themselves. I understand their concerns. Who wants to get entangled in a fabricated criminal case in a country at war, especially when Ukraine badly needs the support and goodwill of European partners? In such a context, the Maltsev case became highly inconvenient, because criticism of Ukraine was often not welcomed by editorial offices.

— Did Ukrainian journalists reach out to you? Did anyone try to independently investigate Maltsev’s case, or did most simply repeat the official narrative?

No. Not a single Ukrainian journalist attempted to contact me, interview me, or hear my side. At court hearings, Ukrainian reporters attended, those who cover high-profile cases and call themselves investigative journalists. But none offered even verbal support. I am certain there are honest journalists in Ukraine who understand what is happening, who see the fabrication, the illegality of my arrest, the harassment of the lawyer.

But they remain silent. Why? Fear. If you defend Maltsev, you are labeled a “criminal accomplice.” If you write about violations in the case, you are accused of “undermining law enforcement.” If you criticize, you risk becoming the next target. I understand their fear, but I cannot justify it.

The only newspaper that tried to examine the situation objectively was your newspaper, Suspilniy Prybiy. You published materials analyzing contradictions in the accusations, giving the defense a voice. You were not afraid. And that deserves tremendous respect.

All other newspapers didn’t merely repeat the accusations; no, they portrayed Oleg Maltsev as an already established criminal. Presumption of innocence? Forget it. These “journalists” held their own trial and declared him guilty long before any verdict.

Some went even further. They began attacking Maltsev’s lawyer, Olga Panchenko. In publications, she was called “the creator of a pro-Russian group preparing to support the GRU in case of an occupation of Odesa.” This is an absurd and monstrous accusation, especially in wartime. If it were true, she would be charged with treason — Article 111 of the Criminal Code, one of the gravest offenses. But her case contains no treason charge. Because it is a lie, slander, an attempt to intimidate and discredit the defense. They cannot defeat Maltsev in an honest legal battle, so they attempt to destroy those who defend him.

— After being released on bail, do you plan to continue working on this topic? Or has the experience of imprisonment changed your plans?

This is a difficult question, and I thought about it for a long time while sitting in the Odesa pre-trial detention center. Yes, I am afraid. It would be hypocritical to deny that. A year in Odesa pre-trial detention, separation from my family, constant uncertainty – it leaves a mark. I am out on bail, but the case is not closed. I cannot leave Ukraine. I am suspended in the air, formally free, but in reality still a hostage of the same system represented by prosecutor Ruslan Voitov. And I fully understand: if I continue publishing materials about Maltsev’s case, I could be arrested again.

At the same time, I cannot simply forget what I learned, what I lived through, what I saw. Oleg Maltsev remains under arrest. His case is fabricated, obvious to anyone who studies the materials objectively. His lawyer, Olga Panchenko, is being smeared with monstrous lies. And most people stay silent. If I fall silent too, then who will tell this story?

Yes, I plan to continue working on this topic. I understand the risk. I have a family that has already suffered a year of stress because of my arrest. I have no right to expose them to more. So I will publish through foreign newspapers, work with international platforms, and use every available mechanism of protection — legal, diplomatic, and media. But I will not be silent.

— What advice would you give to international journalists who want to work in Ukraine and undertake serious investigations?

The most troubling discovery I made while studying my own case and Maltsev’s case is that modern “investigation” in many instances is no longer about the search for truth. It has become a collection of materials to support a prewritten accusatory version. This applies not only to law enforcement, but it has infected a portion of the journalistic community as well. In both fields, people have forgotten how to investigate. Instead, they amass piles of materials, often irrelevant to the essence of the matter, just to create the appearance of thoroughness.

Here is one example from Maltsev’s case. Prosecutor Voitov claims he has 22 witnesses. Impressive, isn’t it? But once I examined the details, I discovered more than half of these “witnesses” do not even know who Oleg Maltsev is. They have never met him, never worked with him, never had any contact.

Why are they in the case? To create volume. So they can say, “Look, we have 22 witnesses, 300 pages of materials, dozens of volumes!” Quantity replaces quality, and bulk replaces evidence. Objectivity does not exist in such an approach.

Unfortunately, some Ukrainian media operate with the same logic. Instead of a journalistic investigation, gathering compromising material. Instead of fact-checking, a replication of rumors. Instead of a balance of opinions, one-sided accusations. They publish dozens of materials against one person, creating the illusion that “if so much is written, it must be true.” But that is not journalism — it is an information war against an individual.

International colleagues must understand the context: Ukraine is at war. Under any regime, authoritarian or formally democratic, wartime always brings tightened controls. This is a predictable reaction of any state to a threat. Intelligence services gain more power, civil liberties shrink, and information becomes heavily regulated. This happened in Germany during both World Wars, in the U.S. after 9/11, and in every country under emergency conditions.

The problem is that these extraordinary powers can be used not only against real threats, but also to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives. SBU counterintelligence officer Yevhen Voloshenyuk and his group hide behind “national security” to eliminate an inconvenient scholar. Prosecutor Ruslan Voitov invokes “military situation” to justify violations of procedural rights.

I made a mistake, and I paid for it with a year of my life. I thought my German citizenship and my ties to international organizations would protect me. I believed Ukraine would not arrest a journalist solely for an inconvenient article. I was wrong.

So my advice to colleagues working on sensitive topics is this: assess the risks realistically. Ask yourself honestly: are you prepared for a year in a pre-trial detention center? Is your family prepared for that stress? Are you prepared for the possibility that your career, reputation, and life may be destroyed? If the answer is “no,” perhaps you should choose another topic or another way to publish.

I do not regret publishing the article about Oleg Maltsev. But I now understand the price of that decision. And every journalist must make such choices consciously.

Do not believe you are untouchable. The most dangerous illusion is thinking “It won’t happen to me.” But do not lose faith in the importance of this work. Every truth published is a victory, even when it must be paid for.

— Do you have a message to the international community? What form of support would be most helpful for you right now?

What is needed right now is objectivity. Colleagues, I ask you: look at the case of Oleg Maltsev objectively. Explore the materials. Talk to the lawyers. Read the OSCE reports and the statements delivered at the UN Human Rights Council regarding the case. You will see what I saw: this is not the investigation of a crime. It is a fabricated case executed through state machinery. Write about it. Publish an investigation. Ask uncomfortable questions to Ukrainian law enforcement and the courts: why are there 22 witnesses in the case, half of whom do not know the accused? Why are the conclusions of international organizations ignored? Why was a journalist arrested four days after publishing a critical article?

I also appeal to Ukrainian journalists who took part in the defamation campaign against Maltsev — perhaps unknowingly, perhaps under pressure, perhaps simply repeating what SBU sources fed them. Correct your mistakes. Professional integrity demands that when you realize you have published false information, you acknowledge and correct it.

I understand the geopolitical context. I understand that Ukraine desperately needs international support. I personally love this country, respect its people, admire the resilience of Ukrainians. And that is precisely why one cannot stay silent when certain officials commit crimes and disgrace their nation. Western governments, international organizations, professional communities must not fear calling things by their real names.

If individuals like prosecutor Ruslan Voitov are allowed to destroy lives with impunity, it sets a precedent. Others will see: it is possible. Possible to arrest inconvenient journalists. Possible to fabricate cases against scholars. Possible to ignore international standards. But if we say loudly: No, you cannot. We see it. We know it. We will not allow it. That also creates a precedent. A precedent that truth is stronger, that crimes of officials do not go unpunished, that the international community protects those who cannot protect themselves.

I am not asking for myself — I am German, I have international support and professional connections. Sooner or later, I will return home. I am asking for Oleg Maltsev, a scholar who has spent more than a year in a pre-trial detention center on a fabricated case, in inhuman conditions that severely worsen his already fragile health. For his lawyer, Olga Panchenko, who is being smeared to force her to abandon his defense. I believe in the power of solidarity. I believe that when decent people act together, they are stronger than any corrupt system. Help us. Help Ukraine become a country where scholars are not persecuted for science, journalists are not jailed for truth, and lawyers are not targeted for professionalism.

Later, it emerged that the case had been fabricated — and those who orchestrated it were rewarded with promotions and career advancements for their relatives. Yet amid all these conversations and speculations, one essential piece was missing. No one even bothered to mention what the scientist was actually doing during the first year of the war.

And perhaps now, it is finally time to tell the story of the work carried out by the scientist who was arrested just eight weeks after announcing a book on war crimes.

During the first year of the full-scale war, when scientific life in Ukraine was nearly paralyzed, universities were shuttered, research funding frozen, and hundreds of scientists forced to emigrate, Oleg Maltsev remained in the country and continued his work. Not only did he refuse to suspend his scientific projects — he mobilized all available academic resources, organized international conferences, published research, conducted expeditions, and built a platform through which Ukrainian scholars could speak to the world about the war and its consequences.

Despite the daily risks, the scientific institutes headed by Maltsev not only continued their work during the first year of the war but did so with renewed intensity. In 2022 alone, teams from his institutes organized eight scientific seminars, four international symposiums, and two research expeditions — to France and Italy. Two monographs were published, textbooks were developed, and new methodological materials were released. Yet the prosecution shamelessly omitted all of this from the criminal case, which by now has taken on the character of a phantom.

Publication of Monographs, Preparation of Textbooks, and Release of Methodological Materials

One of the central areas of research was led by the Popov Research Institute and the Research Institute for the Study of Human Behavior in Extreme Situations. Their goal was to investigate how the human mind operates under conditions of multitasking, rapid change, and uncertainty. The situation in which the entire country found itself became the subject of scientific analysis.

Maltsev and his team began to study the mechanisms of achieving results through the prism of the so-called “invisible phenomena” of the mind, or the phenomena of its functioning.

The interim outcome of this research was the monograph The Work of the Mind in Task Mode. Volume 1. This book is a practical guide on how a person can use their mind: what methods exist for training, tuning, and retuning it, as well as ways to use it effectively in the context of modern multitasking life. The monograph is intended not for academics, but for individuals striving to find clarity and control amid today’s chaos.

Another significant publication is The Robinson Crusoe Effect, a collective monograph authored by Maltsev’s students under his scientific supervision. The monograph is devoted to the phenomenon known as the Robinson Crusoe effect and analyzes a key factor in the development of historical processes. Drawing on data from an expedition to Egypt, the book challenges conventional historical paradigms. It also investigates the origins of so-called “false civilizations” and proposes a theoretical formula that distinguishes between civilized and non-civilized societies.

The third major publication is the Textbook on Conceptology, released as part of the work of the Research Institute of Memory. It is grounded in an idea first articulated by Academician G. S. Popov in the 1930s: “Those who learn to think in concepts will find that everything impossible disappears.”

Compiled by Irina Lopatyuk from a series of lectures by Oleg Maltsev, the textbook presents, for the first time, a structured methodology for developing conceptual thinking. Step by step, readers are guided through the discipline of conceptology — not only gaining insight into its foundations but also training their minds to construct and apply their own concepts in practice, thereby achieving concrete objectives and long-term success.

The textbook, compiled by Iryna Lopatiukbased on Maltsev’s lectures, offers a systematic methodology for conceptual thinking for the first time. Going through the material step by step, the reader not only immerses themselves in the world of conceptology, but also trains their mind, learns to create their own concepts and put them into practice, achieving specific goals and sustainable success.

In 2022, systematic research continued at the Scientific Research Institute International Fate-analisys Assosiation. The work was carried out using the institute’s proprietary methodologies, diagnostic tests, practical frameworks, and technologies, developed in previous years. Despite the turmoil, shelling, and prolonged outages of electricity and heating, the institute did not suspend its operations for a single day. Its specialists pursued applied research in the fields of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, destiny analysis, and personality psychology — disciplines that, as the war has demonstrated, are becoming increasingly vital not only for civil society but also for professional communities such as legal practitioners, entrepreneurs, and other expert sectors.

One of the notable outcomes of the institute’s work was the publication of Oleg Maltsev’s article, Why Fate Is Not Popular, in a German interdisciplinary scientific journal focused on sociology, criminology, philosophy, and political science. In the article, Maltsev explores why, in the 21st century, society tends to reject the concept of fate as a framework for understanding one’s life.

Maltsev presents original conceptual models that allow the idea of fate to be “unpacked” — not as mysticism or fatalism, but as a structured system that can be actively worked with. What prevents people from taking control of their own lives? How can we identify the “enemies of fate” within ourselves — ingrained patterns, limiting beliefs, and fears? And what can serve as the first step toward shaping one’s own future? The answers to these questions are translated into practical tools, valuable not only for psychologists but also for managers and decision-makers navigating the complexities of today’s world.

Scientific Support for Business During Crisis

When full-scale war erupted, most businesses in Ukraine ground to a halt. Some were forced to urgently evacuate their teams, while others struggled to maintain even minimal operations amid the collapse.

Oleg Maltsev stands out as one of the few modern applied scientists who not only conducts fundamental research but also actively integrates scientific findings into the business sector. The Academy of the Professional Services Industry (APSI), where Maltsev serves as scientific director, exemplifies the practical application of science in business. In 2022, under martial law, the Academy not only sustained its activities but intensified them, fully adapting its programs to the demands of the new reality.

APSI concentrated on the most urgent challenges facing entrepreneurs: how to preserve manageability, where to find viable models for business relocation, how to launch a venture from scratch in a new country, and how to rebuild teams amid instability. The Academy offered practical solutions, developed by instructors who were students of Oleg Maltsev. These instructors created methodologies that allowed businesses to restart even under extreme conditions.

A logical continuation of this work was the book The Whole World in Your Pocket, completed by Maltsev later that same year. The book is a compilation of practices passed down to him by his mentor: exercises that develop thinking and the ability to see options where there seem to be none. It is about working with the mind as a tool on which financial stability, the ability to navigate the new economy, and the ability to make choices without succumbing to panic directly depend.

European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: The Voices of Ukrainian Scientists Have Been Heard

In addition to leading several research institutes in Ukraine, scientist Oleg Maltsev serves on the presidium of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EUASU), an international scientific organization committed to the advancement and global promotion of science.

Thanks to the initiative of Maltsev and his colleagues, EUASU played a vital role in safeguarding Ukrainian scientists and journalists during the crisis: accommodation was arranged, personal protective equipment was procured, and international networks were activated to ensure ongoing support.

“I was impressed by how the EUASU managed to maintain a sense of normal scientific life,” said the chairman of the EUASU presidium, American professor Harvey Kushner.

One of the most significant scientific achievements accomplished with the active involvement of Dr. Oleg Maltsev and his colleagues during one of the most challenging periods for Ukraine was the preparation and publication of a series of studies on the consequences of the war, featured in a special issue of the American scientific journal American Behavioral Scientist, titled “War in Ukraine.” The issue includes three articles authored by Maltsev himself, addressing Ukraine’s right to EU membership, the psychological state of Ukrainian youth, and the nature of war crimes.

In addition, this initiative gave seven Ukrainian scientists a platform to be heard throughout the global academic community. Notably, all contributing authors conducted their research while remaining in Ukraine — a powerful testament to the resilience and dedication of Ukrainian scientists, for whom no obstacle is insurmountable.

Vitalii Lunov, Associate Professor at Bogomolets National Medical University, expressed his sincere gratitude for the opportunity to speak on an international platform about the challenges and consequences resulting from Russian military aggression. According to Professor Lunov, the published work was the culmination of a complex, multi-year scientific discourse, drawing on research conducted since 2016. He offered special thanks to Academician Oleg Maltsev, “whose friendship and collaboration make the impossible possible.”

Representing Ukraine with Dignity in the International Scientific Community: The Role of Oleg Maltsev

Dr. Oleg Maltsev is a well-known and respected figure in the international scientific community. He actively collaborates with European institutions and colleagues and regularly presents his research at international conferences.

During the war, he became one of the few Ukrainian scientists who not only maintained but expanded his international activities. As Professor Maksym Lepskyi, head of the Department of Sociology at Zaporizhzhia National University and a long-time co-author, notes, it was thanks to Maltsev’s initiatives that international conferences were organized, providing Ukrainian researchers with a platform to make their voices heard on the global stage.

Oleg Maltsev’s friend and colleague, Professor Vitalii Lunov, also emphasizes the scientist’s international role, describing him as “a man who, without exaggeration, can be called a major scientific leader.” According to Lunov, it was through Maltsev’s initiatives that Ukrainian scholars were able to systematically engage with professors from leading universities around the world. The conferences held under the auspices of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine — initiated by Maltsev — were not isolated events, but part of an ongoing, structured scientific dialogue. Lunov considers Maltsev’s involvement in projects focused on studying Russian aggression to be particularly significant. The conferences he helped organize brought together researchers from universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and across Europe, and these efforts have been reflected in numerous publications in prominent Western academic journals.

Science Diplomacy: The Unknown Wars Conference

The international conference Unknown Wars, initiated by Dr. Oleg Maltsev and held under the auspices of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in July 2022, marked a significant milestone in reshaping the global academic perception of Ukraine. The event brought together researchers from nine countries, including participants from leading universities in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France.

This conference redefined the lens through which Ukraine is viewed in the international academic space. For the first time, the issue of global threats was examined through the prism of Ukrainian experience. For the first time, Ukrainian scientists addressed the challenges of the 21st century not from a theoretical distance, but from the epicenter of unfolding events.

As Dr. Harvey Kushner observed:

“I was struck by the resilience of the Ukrainian scientists who participated in the conference while effectively being in a war zone.”

Prior to the war, Ukraine was often viewed as peripheral in international scientific forums. The conference organized by Oleg Maltsev demonstrated that Ukrainian scholars are not only active contributors to global science but are also capable of offering essential frameworks for understanding contemporary geopolitical instability.

Kushner underscored this point:

“It reminded me (as I already knew) that there is a lack of knowledge about everything related to Eastern Europe and Ukraine. This is especially true for scientists in this region. There is hope that our view of a problem that could affect the whole world will be better understood if we look at it mostly through Ukrainian eyes.”

In 2022, Dr. Maltsev also published a series of articles in international scientific journals. Among them was a contribution to the French journal Baudrillard Now, analyzing how global uncertainty is exploited to manipulate mass consciousness; an article in the Latvian journal Granite of Science on political marketing as a driver of global threats; an analytical piece in La Voce di New York, where Maltsev explores the philosophical roots of war and catastrophe; and a publication in the French journal Dogma focused on methodologies for studying subcultures.

These works are unified by the author’s commitment to honest, rigorous, and empirically grounded analysis of contemporary global realities.

Instead of Gratitude — a Fabricated Criminal Case

When one considers the scale of what Oleg Maltsev accomplished during the first year of the war, it becomes undeniably clear: this was not a man working against Ukraine — he was working for it. He did not leave when tens of thousands fled. He did not shutter his institutes while hundreds across the country closed their doors. He did not halt scientific activity. On the contrary, he built platforms, united researchers, and amplified the voice of Ukrainian science.

He did all this because he understood a simple truth: the scientific front is also a battlefield. And if Ukrainian science disappears, the nation risks losing one of the foundational pillars of its statehood.

While sirens wailed and the threat of occupation loomed, Maltsev continued to organize international conferences, publish textbooks, release peer-reviewed articles abroad, mentor young researchers, integrate scientific models into business, and build bridges between Ukraine and the global academic community.

And yet, instead of gratitude, he was met with a fabricated criminal case. Those behind the operation were given total carte blanche — permission to surveil, wiretap, intercept correspondence, and interfere in both his personal and professional life. An entire investigative unit of prosecutors, investigators, operatives, and military counterintelligence was deployed.

And they found nothing.

Because there was nothing to find. Because everything this man did was in service to the state — not against it. Because when a person’s life is built on contribution, it becomes impossible to manufacture guilt.

His actions are themselves the evidence of his integrity.

On the face of it, the arrest of Panchenko, accused of acting as an accomplice to her own client seven months after undertaking his legal defense, appears, to put it mildly, illogical. The charge brought against her is identical to that faced by her clients: the organization and participation in an illegal paramilitary group. At the initial hearing, both Panchenko and her legal team stated that they had reviewed the very same case materials which now serve as the basis for her suspicion—materials that have been available to her for the past seven months.

In other words, for seven full months, investigators and prosecutors permitted Panchenko to engage in procedural actions. She met with her clients—now reclassified as her alleged co-conspirators—in pre-trial detention, communicated with them, provided legal counsel, and was granted access to all investigative documents. The question thus arises: what changed?

According to Judge Naumenko, who ruled on Panchenko’s pre-trial detention, the arrest was part of “the tactics of conducting the pre-trial investigation, which are not subject to disclosure but form part of its strategic design.”

However, this purported “design” failed to persuade the panel of appellate judges. Throughout the appeal, the judges repeatedly questioned the prosecution as to whether there was any evidence that Panchenko had influenced witnesses or tampered with evidence during those seven months. No concrete answers were forthcoming.

At the appellate hearing, Panchenko’s lawyer addressed the optics of the situation, acknowledging that to some, it might appear as if she had “jumped onto the last carriage of the train” by agreeing to represent Maltsev. Yet, the facts tell a different story. The case originated under the jurisdiction of the State Bureau of Investigation (GBI) in September 2023, at which time it did not involve charges of illegal paramilitary activity. Instead, the initial investigation centered on allegations of bribery, treason, and the justification of russian aggression. Notably, Dr. Maltsev was not named as a suspect during that phase of the investigation. When the case materials were transferred to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in May 2024, Panchenko continued to represent his interests.

Another curious episode unfolded during the first-instance court hearing: the prosecutor, in addition to citing the works of Ukrainian poet Vasyl Stus and referencing case law from the state of Texas, read aloud excerpts from a recorded conversation, allegedly from a protocol of video inspection. Panchenko was a participant in this dialogue, dated April 2022.

This raises further questions: by September 2024, Panchenko was aware of this protocol and its presence in the case file, yet she did not recuse herself. Nor did she leave the country, despite facing no travel restrictions. According to fellow lawyers involved in the Maltsev case and colleagues familiar with Panchenko’s professional integrity, she received repeated threats over the seven-month period. These threats demanded she withdraw from the case in exchange for “procedural safety”—offers she reportedly declined.

Panchenko’s choices may seem, at the very least, unstrategic: to confront powerful state security agencies during wartime, knowing she could be imprisoned at any moment, and to persevere in her legal duties under constant pressure. But that is exactly what she did.

To gain deeper insight into the case and its unusual turns, we spoke with another member of Dr. Maltsev’s defense team, attorney Evgenia Tarasenko. What follows is an interview that sheds light on the case through detailed testimony and documented facts.

Q: First question—many court decisions refer to a specific “list” of individuals whom the investigation alleges were part of an illegal paramilitary formation, purportedly plotting to seize control of Odessa. Who are these individuals?

A: According to the investigative authorities, there are 23 individuals on this so-called list—23 people, allegedly conspiring to seize Odessa, a city of over one million residents. I will begin with those who have been held in custody for the past seven months without any alternative pre-trial measures. I will name only those whose identities have already been made public and who have consented to disclosure:

• Dr. Oleg Maltsev — a Ukrainian scientist of international repute;
• Kostyantyn Slobodyanyuk — a well-known journalist and former producer at several television networks;
• Sergey Engelmann — a German citizen and international journalist, owner of several magazines in Germany;
• A 53-year-old woman who assisted Dr. Maltsev’s wife with domestic duties;
• A female assistant to Dr. Maltsev who also served as an Italian interpreter;
• A psychologist and director of a research institute, known to be a follower of the renowned Hungarian psychiatrist Lipót Szondi;
• A freelance academic who had previously collaborated with the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine;
• Attorney Olga Panchenko, who was released from custody on bail by decision of the Court of Appeal on April 25, 2025.

In addition, there was a former journalist held in pre-trial detention who initially denied all charges. However, after four months in custody, he reached a plea agreement with the prosecution and admitted guilt for alleged participation in an illegal paramilitary formation. In practical terms, the court issued him a suspended sentence—effectively, no meaningful punishment. He has been freely walking the streets of Odessa for some time now.

The remaining individuals on the list are those who, at various times, collaborated with the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Among them are eight men and five women. Notably, the list also includes a U.S. citizen and the owner of a media production company based in Los Angeles.

None of those listed has any combat experience, to my knowledge. Perhaps two of them previously served in the military, but that is all.

So, to summarize the position of the investigation: a group of 23 individuals—comprising 10 women and 13 men, most of whom are intellectuals, academics, and civilians with no military background—were allegedly plotting to seize control of a major Ukrainian city. The logic of this allegation is difficult to grasp.

Q: And how did the investigation compile this list?

A: The list was provided by a witness in the case—a citizen of Kyrgyzstan. This is the same individual who, in her sworn testimony, claimed she came from “Planet Tinia, made entirely of gold and crystal.” The defense formally requested a psychiatric evaluation of this witness, given the fantastical nature of her statements, but the investigator refused.

This witness has a clear and personal grudge against Dr. Maltsev, which she does not even attempt to conceal. She also pleaded guilty to participation in an illegal paramilitary formation. Interestingly, no preventive measure was imposed on her whatsoever. The court sentenced her to a fine of 59,500 hryvnias.

Here is the refined version of your text, written in classical and formal English while preserving the logic and emotional weight of the original:

Q: Am I correct in understanding that individuals who plead guilty are immediately released from custody?

A: Precisely. Those who choose not to plead guilty have been held in pre-trial detention for seven months without the possibility of release on bail. Notably, five of these individuals—four women and a German journalist—are charged with offenses that are not classified as serious under Ukrainian criminal law.

Moreover, if one considers the sentences already imposed on two individuals who pleaded guilty—a monetary fine of 59,500 hryvnias and a suspended sentence—it becomes evident that those still held without alternative measures do not present any genuine threat to society. They are simply being “marinated,” so to speak, in the hope that prolonged detention will pressure them into making “voluntary confessions.”

Q: Tell us about the protocol that was read aloud in court during the hearing on pre-trial measures for attorney Olga Panchenko.

A: First, no protocol was formally read aloud. Rather, isolated phrases were selectively extracted and quoted out of context. It is important to emphasize that the prosecutor himself stated in court that these statements were not evidence of guilt but rather a “characterization” of Olga Panchenko’s persona. At one point, the prosecutor even quoted lines from the poet Vasyl Stus, but neglected to mention that the actual content of the dialogue contains no corpus delicti whatsoever. This conclusion, notably, is supported by the linguistic expert analysis submitted by the prosecution itself—though curiously, the prosecutor omitted this fact when addressing the court.

Secondly, the material in question relates to a three-hour internal meeting of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EANU), held in April 2022, during the early days of the war. The topic of discussion was the potential response of the Academy in the event that urban warfare broke out in Odessa or that the city fell under russian occupation. At the time, the public was deeply unsettled by widespread reports suggesting imminent amphibious landings by russian forces.

The objective of that meeting was to develop a plan to protect both the people affiliated with the Academy and its property. Throughout the meeting, Dr. Maltsev repeatedly emphasized that the primary goal was the protection of lives and property. Nevertheless, this essential context was conspicuously excluded from the prosecutor’s presentation in court.

Q: What was attorney Olga Panchenko’s role in that meeting?

A: Ms. Panchenko has been providing legal support to the EANU since 2019. At that time, the Academy comprised approximately 200 scientists from across the globe and maintained partnerships with numerous scientific institutions. Its principal mission is to unite international scholars around Ukrainian science. As such, its ongoing collaboration with foreign researchers and the frequent publication of materials on the Academy’s websites often raised questions of copyright and intellectual property. Given that many members of the Academy are non-Ukrainian citizens, it was essential to have legal counsel fluent in English.

Furthermore, like many institutional meetings, this session also had a performative element. As Ms. Panchenko herself explained in court, the video recording of the meeting should not be interpreted as a literal blueprint for action, but as a partially theatrical discourse reflecting the extraordinary anxiety of the time.

Q: In court, the prosecutor cited a conversation between Dr. Maltsev and Ms. Panchenko concerning the use of weapons. What is your response to this?

A: I find the insinuation quite bewildering, particularly given that the transcript clearly states the use of weapons only in the context of self-defense.

This discussion followed remarks from one of the participants, who had quoted a Ukrainian politician asserting that the Azov Battalion had been “almost annihilated” and that Mariupol was being prepared for surrender—claims that were to be spun as a “revival of Ukraine.” Dr. Maltsev, incensed by the statement, responded that framing the killing of Azov fighters as a national revival would only make sense if one were “affiliated with the FSB.” Is this, one might ask, the kind of rhetoric one would expect from someone sympathetic to the russian federation?

The topic of weapon use was also raised after Ms. Panchenko recounted a testimony from a friend in Kherson. According to that account, russian forces had seized food from civilians, and local SBU officials had allegedly handed over details of underground resistance and territorial defense units to russian authorities—leading to brutal reprisals.

In response, Dr. Maltsev elaborated on a concept of “staggered defense”—the idea that the response should be proportionate to the number and armament of attackers. His explanation aligns precisely with Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which addresses the principle of necessary defense.

In fact, this specific issue was submitted to linguistic experts at the National Scientific Center “Institute of Forensic Expertise named after Honored Professor M.S. Bokarius.” Their conclusion was unequivocal. I quote:

“Based on the linguistic analysis conducted, the experts found that within the examined statements on the video, there were expressions in the form of inducement to use weapons in self-defense. In particular, the speakers identified as ‘Maltsev O.V.’ and ‘Panchenko O.V.’ urged the recipients to use weapons exclusively for the purpose of self-defense against armed attackers in defined military circumstances.”

Moreover, I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that throughout the entire pre-trial investigation—which has now spanned approximately one and a half years—law enforcement authorities conducted nearly 60 searches in connection with the case. Not a single unregistered or live military-grade weapon was discovered, nor was any live ammunition recovered. All of the weapons found were either sporting or hunting arms, and the corresponding ammunition matched this classification. The quantity of cartridges seized was insignificantly small, and all were purchased legally for registered weapons. Documentation confirming lawful ownership and registration was submitted to the investigating judge.

The black humor of the investigative narrative lies in the absurdity of its core claim: that Dr. Oleg Maltsev allegedly intended to “seize Odessa” using registered FORT-9 and FORT-12 pistols. According to Ukrainian law, these are not even classified as firearms, but rather as non-lethal self-defense devices—commonly known as traumatic pistols—which discharge rubber bullets.

No explosives or grenades were found in any of the searches. Thus, the notion that 23 individuals—half of whom are women, and none of whom possess combat experience—intended to overthrow the authorities of a city with a population exceeding one million residents, armed solely with sporting weapons, is nothing short of preposterous. The investigative version of events cannot withstand even the most rudimentary scrutiny.

Q: The trial court also questioned the fact that Attorney Panchenko had visited a shooting range. What is your response to this?

A: Ms. Panchenko has lawfully owned and registered firearms since 2013. According to the prosecution, between 2022 and 2024, Dr. Maltsev allegedly purchased additional firearms and registered them under her name. It will be quite revealing to see how the prosecution intends to prove such a claim in court.

Let us be candid: since the onset of the war, there has been an unprecedented surge in lawful firearm purchases across Ukraine. Citizens are frequenting shooting ranges and preparing to defend themselves—a completely reasonable and lawful response to wartime realities. If visiting a shooting range or possessing a legally registered firearm is deemed suspicious, then one must ask why investigators do not apprehend every individual entering such facilities. Why are professional shooting teams and sport clubs not under investigation?

It is worth noting that most of the firearms registered to Dr. Maltsev are classified as sports weapons. He used them for competitive shooting in the Olympic discipline of Skeet. These trainings were conducted at the official Olympic shooting range in Odessa, and the investigation possessed documentation of this fact well before any formal suspicion was filed against him.

Q: The prosecutor quoted Maltsev as saying that, “if necessary, one could shoot in self-defense.” How should this statement be interpreted?

A: In the context of wartime, distinguishing a Ukrainian soldier from a russian one is not always straightforward—often the only visual difference is the uniform. By that time, numerous reports had emerged indicating that russian forces were disguising themselves in Ukrainian military attire to infiltrate and mislead.

Dr. Maltsev explicitly addressed this danger in his co-authored book Strike in the Worst Way, written with American professor Harvey Wolf Kushner. The statement regarding the use of force in self-defense must therefore be understood within this context: it reflects a discussion on the legal and ethical use of firearms in situations where deception and infiltration pose a direct threat to civilians.

Here is your refined passage in classical English, preserving the legal gravity and logical coherence while enhancing clarity and flow:

Q: During the hearing, Panchenko’s lawyer referenced the concept of the underground resistance. Does this claim correspond to the facts of the case?

A: It does—and there is concrete evidence to support it within the case file. Attorneys Babikov and Fedorenko previously noted that, after the defense gained access to the full body of investigative materials, it became evident that nearly all investigative actions (with the exception of physical searches) were conducted by a single counterintelligence operative. This same individual not only served as the operative but also acted as the complainant in the case. His procedural role was marred by numerous abuses and blatant misrepresentations within the official reports.

This same operative was tasked with analyzing a video recording in which Dr. Maltsev discussed the prospect of an underground resistance in the event that Odessa were occupied by russian forces. However, the official inspection protocol contains none of the actual context. Instead, the operative selectively quoted isolated phrases, presenting them in a distorted fashion. The investigator, therefore, received a version of events filtered through these misrepresentations—ones that neatly aligned with the operative’s preferred narrative.

Q: And where did Dr. Maltsev derive the idea of combining the protection of Academy personnel and assets with potential support for national defense efforts?

A: On March 18, 2022, Ukrainian national media widely reported the formation of the National Resistance Center. This Center, through its official website, published recommendations addressed to Ukrainian citizens on how to assist national defense forces in the event of occupation.

These publicly available guidelines included, among other things:

• Instructions for civilians employed within occupation administrative structures,
• Video tutorials on handling firearms—including automatic rifles, RPGs, and grenades,
• Basic training in tactical medicine,
• Guidance on underground financing and resistance tactics.

Moreover, all of these provisions are firmly grounded in the Law of Ukraine “On National Resistance,” adopted in 2021.

In light of this legal and informational framework, only someone who either assumed they would be evacuated during an urban assault—or, in the case of certain law enforcement officers, simply planned to flee—could plausibly claim ignorance of these protocols. One need only recall the early days of russian advances in Kherson or Mariupol to understand how unrealistic such assumptions were. Most residents in those cities had no opportunity for evacuation.

Thus, practical questions emerge:

• How can one ensure safe departure from an occupied city?
• How should one respond when grenades or landmines are falling nearby?
• What does one do when faced with an armed enemy soldier intent on looting or killing?

In such scenarios, is it reasonable to expect that presenting a lawyer’s ID would ensure safety? This is precisely why, in the video recording from April 2022, Olga Panchenko remarks that “no one needs lawyers now”—because law has no force in a territory consumed by active combat.

Q: Given the severity of these contradictions, why did the defense remain silent for seven months?

A: As the defense team has repeatedly emphasized, this case is the product of unlawful criminal persecution of Dr. Oleg Maltsev by select representatives of law enforcement. And this is not merely our opinion. This view has been echoed by international human rights observers—including European human rights organizations, who explicitly addressed the matter on March 28, 2025, during the 58th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

We fully expected the authorities to manufacture new allegations. Toward the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation, defense counsel Olga Panchenko formally submitted documentary evidence to the prosecutor—materials directly supporting these claims of procedural abuse.

Less than two months later, the very same prosecutor to whom those materials were submitted served Ms. Panchenko with a notice of suspicion, accusing her of organizing an illegal paramilitary group. He then approved and filed a motion seeking her detention without the right to bail.

Q: Final question. Official reports claim that Olga Panchenko intended to assume the position of Prosecutor of Odessa in the event of a russian occupation. Is there any truth to this assertion?

A: I have worked alongside Olga Panchenko for over a decade. The notion that she would become “Prosecutor of Odessa” in case of occupation has, for more than seven years, been an inside joke among our legal colleagues. The phrase originated not from a conspiratorial plan, but from one of Olga’s clients, who once walked into our office and, half-joking, declared he had discovered the solution to all his legal troubles: appoint Olga as the Prosecutor of Odessa. To this, the lawyers in the room responded, laughing, that if such an appointment occurred, he would have less than an hour to reach the airport—since Olga, as his defense attorney, knew far too much about him.

In the video cited by the prosecution, this exact joke is made. Olga utters the line in jest, and both she and Dr. Maltsev laugh. I understand that, given the strain placed on national security institutions during wartime, some officials may be on high alert. But the context here could not be more evident.

That said, in all seriousness, I am confident that if her country were truly in danger, Olga Panchenko would not hesitate to serve in whatever way was necessary, including such a post, if it meant protecting civilians in a time of national crisis.

As history would have it, the occupation forces never reached Odessa. By May 2023—as evidenced in materials that are in the hands of the investigation—Dr. Maltsev explicitly stated that the threat had subsided and that normal activities could resume. Nonetheless, he also remarked—verbatim—that, should the city fall under occupation, “the underground has already been created.”

Then, in September 2024, Maltsev was detained, and the authorities triumphantly announced that they had “disrupted the enemy’s insidious plans.”

In conclusion, I must emphasize that the defense has thoroughly reviewed all 30 volumes of Dr. Oleg Maltsev’s case file. Approximately 60 searches were conducted. Dozens of computers and phones were seized and analyzed. All of Maltsev’s personal devices and messaging applications were subjected to expert forensic examination.

There is no evidence whatsoever of collaboration with the russian federation. There are no covert meetings with foreign handlers, no training drills for urban assaults, no blueprint for seizing Odessa. None of this exists—because it never happened. And what does not exist cannot be uncovered; it can only be fabricated, projected, or imagined by those unwilling to confront the facts.

That is precisely why we, the defense team, have taken the unusual step of publishing video recordings of the court proceedings—because we know our clients are innocent. And it seems increasingly clear that this, more than anything, is what certain parties find intolerable.