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.

Let’s take a look at what’s going on. A little background, which became the reason for publishing this interview with the lawyer.

On January 27, 2025, the public activist Demyan Ganul (Дем’ян Ганул – Ukr) – the owner of more than one criminal proceeding and a lover of getting into traffic accidents – suddenly appeared in the Court of Appeal of the city of Odessa. But, in some strange way, all criminal cases against Ganul disappeared into oblivion. And this has long prompted many to think that Ganul is firmly on the hook with the local SBU and, as one movie said, “he can’t afford amateurishness”.

He showed up, threatened the lawyer, demanded criminal prosecution of the lawyer and posted the post on his Telegram channel. That’s not all, read on…

About the criminal case of the scientist Oleg Maltsev in the Internet is written a lot. However, whether he is guilty or not – to decide the court. However, what is very striking is the active disinformation campaign against Maltsev. We journalists know that the period of relevance of a topic is very short, especially when it concerns the detention of some persons. However, with Maltsev this topic is constantly heated up, which involuntarily leads to thoughts about the ordered nature of this case or attempts of the investigation and prosecutor’s office to justify their actions at the expense of the so-called “public opinion”. As they say in our country there are 2 courts: the court of law and the court of public opinion. Taking into account the aggressiveness and mass publications concerning Oleg Maltsev, it seems that the investigation counts on the fact that the court of public opinion will solve all the issues with the court of legal opinion.

The method is not new: they take a person, smear him with dirt in the information space. Then – everyone gets scared (judges are people too and they are scared too, especially scared to go into a confrontation with security bodies during the war), acquaintances scatter and the person is left alone.

So, the commentary of the lawyer Evgenia Tarasenko, who has previously answered the questions of journalists on this case. We should note at once that it is extremely difficult for us to believe that Ukraine, for which the whole civilized world has been fighting for the last 3 years, has actually turned into a country similar to the USSR, where the KGB methods of work play a significant role. However, what we have heard actively encourages these thoughts.

— Yevgeniya, can you tell me at what stage the criminal case against Oleg Maltsev currently stands?

The pre-trial investigation is still underway; however, in the near future, the case will be submitted to the court for consideration on its merits. The terms of the pre-trial investigation have been extended twice, with the investigators claiming that they have not had sufficient time to complete their work and transfer the case to the court within the initial two- and four-month deadlines. Yet, the SBU has been handling this case since early May 2024.

— How would you comment on activist Demyan Ganul’s recent publication calling for Maltsev to remain in custody? What do you believe is behind it?

The first thing I would like to emphasize is this: On January 27, the Odessa Court of Appeal held a hearing on lawyers’ appeals against the extension of detention for seven defendants in the case. Among the lawyers present was my colleague, Olga Panchenko, who represents not only Maltsev but also another defendant.

According to her account, the activist Demyan Ganul attended the hearing, accompanied by three robust young men of draft age. During the proceedings, Ganul openly voiced his dissatisfaction, accusing Panchenko of defending so-called “pro-Russian elements” and, by extension, implying that she shared their views. Knowing my colleague to be a woman of integrity, she responded by reminding him that acquittals do occur in Ukraine—suggesting that investigations are not infallible.

Ganul countered, asserting with confidence that he was certain of Maltsev’s guilt because he had “seen the case materials.” Panchenko, taken aback by this claim, asked him how he had obtained access to the pre-trial investigation materials. At first, Ganul claimed they were available online. However, when asked to specify which website had published them, he hesitated and admitted that he could not recall. Ultimately, he refused to answer the question and, in effect, threatened to retaliate against Panchenko for her defense of Maltsev by publicly smearing her and other lawyers in the case with misleading and defamatory accusations.

Under normal circumstances, such claims might be difficult to verify. However, my colleague records all court proceedings in audio format, allowing her to review her statements and improve her arguments. The conversation with Ganul was captured on this recording, and I am providing it to you (The conversation in the video is in Ukrainian).

— I wonder, is this even possible?

Under Ukrainian law, the identification of a lawyer and their client is prohibited. However, judging by the audio recording, Ganul appears to have his own interpretation of Ukrainian legislation. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the unauthorized disclosure of pre-trial investigation materials carries criminal liability. In this case, the responsibility would lie with either the investigator, the prosecutor, or operational officers. The defense, as you can understand, did not provide any materials to Ganul and does not have access to them in full until the case is submitted to the court.

In this regard, I have already filed a criminal complaint with the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI).

— Ganul writes that “In Odessa, members of the Russian underground want to go free.” How would you respond to this?

Such a statement could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Ukrainian law. Every individual has the right to appeal against a measure of restraint, particularly in cases of detention without the possibility of bail. Since when has exercising this right become a crime?

Moreover, if I am not mistaken, Ganul himself was once subjected to the same measure of restraint—detention in custody—by the Primorsky Court of Odessa. He subsequently appealed against it in the Court of Appeal. So what does this mean? When Ganul exercises his rights, it is legitimate, but when Maltsev does the same, it is considered a crime?

I am not even speaking of the presumption of innocence. Listening to the recording, I have the distinct impression that Ganul has taken it upon himself to assume the court’s authority, deciding who is guilty and who is not. As I noted earlier, the question of how he obtained access to the case files is a separate issue—one that strongly suggests malfeasance.

I can only hope that this time, the SBI will fulfill its duty rather than allow the matter to be swept under the rug, as happened in the case of the theft of more than 12,000 euros from Maltsev’s apartment during a search conducted on February 29 of last year.

— What can you say about the “list” published by Ganul?

This so-called “list” has become a kind of sacred cow that the prosecution clings to desperately. In reality, it is nothing more than a screenshot provided by a witness in the case—someone who, rather incredibly, claims to be “from another planet, Tinia.” What is more, this “list” appears highly dubious.

According to the logic of the investigation, the individuals named on it are supposedly dangerous state criminals, armed to the teeth. Yet, paradoxically, many of them are sent to serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU)—presumably to carry out subversive activities there. Others are summoned for interrogation and then allowed to walk freely around Odessa for three to four months; some even travel abroad. Clearly, the authorities themselves do not take this “list” seriously. If these individuals truly posed a threat, they would have been arrested alongside Maltsev back in September 2024.

It was only after Maltsev’s arrest that the authorities began detaining individuals from the list. But these arrests are highly questionable. People are taken into custody and then pressured into making deals with the investigation. In other words, they are presented with a stark choice: either languish in pre-trial detention indefinitely “until the court figures it out” or denounce Maltsev and walk free.

Notably, the list also includes the prosecution’s main witness—the very person who claims to be “from another planet.” And yet, unlike the six other individuals detained on the same charges—who remain in pre-trial detention without the right to bail—she was not subjected to any restrictive measures. Instead, the court sentenced her to a mere fine of 50,000 hryvnias because she “admitted guilt.” Strange, is it not? How could such a supposedly dangerous criminal be treated with such leniency? Why would that be?

This verdict serves as the clearest proof that the so-called “list” is nothing but a tool of intimidation, used to coerce false testimony against Maltsev.

Regarding the lawyer Olga Panchenko—her surname appears in the so-called “sacred list” taken from this “sacred screenshot,” which was handed to the investigation by the witness “from planet Tinia.” As I mentioned earlier, not only the SBU but also the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the National Police have been working on the Maltsev case over the past year. These efforts have amounted to nothing—merely an attempt to fabricate something.

Olga successfully defended the case against the SBI and the National Police, leading to numerous official investigations against those involved. As you can imagine, certain individuals have not forgotten this, and at the first opportunity, they will eagerly seek revenge—something some do not even bother to conceal. It is unsurprising, then, that Panchenko has become a thorn in the side of those orchestrating this case. And if she is now a suspect simply “because the public—in the person of Ganul—demanded it,” then even those who previously doubted that the case against Maltsev was fabricated will have no doubts left.

Moreover, just recently, Olga gave an interview to one of the leading American publications, as her level of English allows her to do so. For almost five months, I was the only one providing commentary to the media, while Olga focused solely on the legal aspects of the case. I can only assume that her decision to speak out was triggered by Ganul and his conduct at the Court of Appeal.

The case is now approaching a critical stage—the opening of evidence from both the prosecution and the defense. Olga is leading this effort on our side.

One must also ask: why did activist Ganul suddenly develop such animosity toward her? On the recording I provided to you, he threatens to “expose” all the defense lawyers in this case as “bad people.” And yet, in his public post, he singles out only Olga. Why?

— One last question. Is Maltsev truly as innocent as you claim? I understand that you are his lawyer, but still—does the investigation have nothing?

The investigation has the testimony of a woman who claims to be “from another planet,” as well as a video whose content has been distorted beyond recognition through fabricated expert analysis. There is, and cannot be, any evidence of “pro-Russian activity” on Maltsev’s part—because one cannot find something that does not exist.

Given our defense strategy, I cannot disclose everything at this stage. However, believe me, when this case reaches court, you will be greatly surprised. I strongly suspect that the current wave of misinformation—spread by individuals like Ganul—is nothing more than an attempt by the prosecution to influence the court before the case is even formally submitted.

After all, consider this: if solid evidence existed, why would these tactics be necessary? Why resort to intimidation of defense lawyers through figures like Ganul? Numerous online resources have already written about a so-called “pro-Russian cell,” “GRU agents,” and even “space pirates.” Yet none of this is real, and sooner or later, the truth will be revealed in court. You may draw your own conclusions.

As I have said before, I sincerely hope that the prosecution has simply been misled and manipulated for personal interests—especially in these extremely tense times, given that the country is at war. That could explain how this case has taken such a course. But time will tell.

If the prosecution were to seek my advice, I would put it simply: Let us operate within the legal framework, as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. Leave the information space alone, and it will return the favor.