The case of Dr Oleg Maltsev and the criminalisation of the right to life in Ukraine
By EUASU.org
Is it possible to be prosecuted for defending your country, your right to life, and expressing your opinion? Although the question itself sounds strange and contradictory, scientist Oleg Maltsev has been criminally prosecuted in Ukraine precisely for this reasons. He is accused not of committing any illegal acts or causing harm, but solely for the fact that, during an exchange of opinions with colleagues, he emphasized the need to defend Odesa from occupying authorities and looters.
In March and April 2022 Ukrainian politicians were actively calling on the citizens of Ukraine to resist the Russian occupation authorities, including by possible cooperation with them in the occupied territories as a Ukrainian underground.
A government website was created, the Centre of National Resistance. On this site there were recommendations on how to handle weapons, grenades and even grenade launchers. The site also contained a manual in which Ukrainian citizens who found themselves in the occupied territories were advised to enter into cooperation with the Russian authorities and, by taking posts in the occupation administration, to help Ukraine as an underground.
On the basis of these slogans and official state policy on 18 April 2022 Oleg Maltsev and other members of European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine had a meeting.
At that time Odesa was living under a real threat of occupation and the example of Kherson, a city that fell within a few days almost without organised defence, was before everyone’s eyes. The residents of Kherson were left alone with the Russian authorities without any support from the Ukrainian authorities.
At the meeting they discussed plans for survival, self defence and protection of staff in the event of the failure of the state security system, as well as ways of helping Ukraine itself in line with its official policy at that time. In this they were fully supported by colleagues from Europe and the United States.
In September 2024 law enforcement bodies in Odesa detained Dr Oleg Maltsev, a scholar, practising lawyer and academician of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. He and a group of his colleagues were charged with conspiracy to violently overthrow the constitutional order (Article 109 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and with the creation of an unlawful paramilitary formation (Article 260 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Two years later, in September 2024, conversation on April 18, 2022 was interpreted by the investigation as a conspiracy against the constitutional order. Thus the discussion of civil self defence and assistance to the state, in accordance with the policy that the same state was then promoting, was turned into the basis for a criminal case.
Historical and political context of the case
In the spring of 2022, soon after the start of Russia’s full scale invasion, the south of Ukraine came under direct military threat. The fate of Kherson showed that state institutions in frontline cities could be paralysed or destroyed in just a few days. For Odesa, a large city with a long history and an active civil society, the scenario of rapid occupation looked not theoretical but quite practical.
Against this background a group of scholars, lawyers and activists led by Oleg Maltsev held an online meeting on 18 April 2022.
The aims of the discussion were:
1) protection of the lives and security of staff,
2) preservation of the infrastructure of the academic organisation,
3) prevention of chaos and looting in the event of the failure of the official security system,
4) assistance to the state in the event that Odesa was occupied by Russian troops through the creation of an underground financed by American and European scholars.
At that time this position and these actions fully corresponded to the official policy of the state as published on the government website of the Centre of National Resistance.
It is notable that the video recording in which Maltsev openly states that with the help of American and European colleagues he prepared an underground in Odesa in case the city was occupied by Russian troops is also in the case file, yet the investigation stubbornly pretends that neither this position nor the video itself exists.
VIDEO N6.
YouTube: “An operational-combat unit is Ukraine’s underground resistance, ready if Odessa falls under occupation”
https://youtu.be/urJwSHZJgKU
In December 2023 Maltsev voluntarily returned to Ukraine from another scientific expedition, knowing that a criminal case had been opened against him. In September 2024 he was arrested. In October four of his female research staff and the German journalist Serhiy Engelmann were also arrested.
In 2025 a chain of court decisions and international statements began to call into question the stability of the accusatory construction. The conviction in a related episode, concerning the so-called key witness for the prosecution, was quashed. The German journalist and the four researchers were released from custody. Human Rights Without Frontiers presented a detailed report on the Maltsev case at the OSCE Human Dimension Conference.
Legislative and doctrinal framework: what the state permits
At the end of 2024 the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine prepared a scholarly legal expert opinion on the Maltsev case. Its key conclusions can be summed up in several points.
1) Preparation of defensive measures by the civilian population in conditions of war and possible occupation is not in itself a crime. Training and preparation for the protection of an organisation during wartime is regarded as the exercise of the constitutional right to self defence.
2) The expression of intentions and plans without specific preparatory acts is protected by freedom of expression. In the absence of real preparatory acts, discussion of scenarios alone is insufficient for the elements of crimes under Articles 109 and 260.
3) In temporarily occupied territories the constitutional order of Ukraine does not function de facto. It is impossible to overthrow something that does not operate in the given conditions. The subject is resistance to occupation rather than the overthrow of one’s own statehood.
4) In Ukraine at the legislative level there is no authority that deals with the protection of the civilian population during hostilities.
These conclusions coincide with the logic of the legislation on national resistance and with the logic of the official handbook of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine “Hromadianskyi sprotyv” (“Civil Resistance”), approved in 2022. In this handbook citizens in the occupied territories are invited to
1) organise themselves in every possible way,
2) use passive methods of resistance such as sabotage and the slowing down of processes,
3) cooperate with the occupation authorities in various posts and, acting as an underground, help the Ukrainian state,
4) use active forms of resistance, including putting the occupier’s infrastructure out of action and organising secure communication.
In other words, what the state describes in public documents as a normal and desirable reaction of citizens became in the Maltsev case the subject of criminal prosecution.
Freedom of expression and international standards
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of expression, including ideas that offend, shock or disturb. It does not ban harsh language as such but only direct incitement to violence and crime that creates a real and imminent threat.
The Maltsev case is dangerous for several reasons.
1) It is based exclusively on words and not on actions.
2) It ignores the distinction between hypothetical discussion of self defence scenarios and concrete preparation of a crime.
3) The official policy and recommendations of the state at the beginning of 2022 regarding the behaviour of Ukrainian citizens in occupied territories are presented as a crime.
4) It replaces analysis of real harm, such as victims, damage or attempts at a coup, with an emotional reaction to isolated phrases removed from the context of war.
To understand where the line runs between harsh words about self defence and criminal incitement to overthrow the authorities, it is necessary to look closely at the quotations that form the basis of the accusation.
Analysis of key quotations of Oleg Maltsev
The fragments that justify the criminal prosecution are set out below. For each quotation it is important to understand the context of the conversation, the literal meaning and the legal assessment from the point of view of Ukrainian law and international standards.
Quotation 1. “To survive the war and preserve the organisation”
“Task number one is to survive the war. Task number two is to go through the period in such a way that it later ensures our integration into peaceful life in a manner that provides the proper social level and social status of our organisation. We will not fight on any side of the conflict, we will not support any ideology, and we will be engaged in promoting our organisation and raising its status, using this situation.”
VIDEO N1.
YouTube: “Task N1: To survive the war and preserve the organisation”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7HR6Yy9vYs
From the legal point of view this statement not only fails to confirm but directly refutes the prosecution’s thesis about the creation of a “paramilitary formation” for the purpose of Maltsev working for Russia. Maltsev clearly says that the organisation is not going to fight on any side. Preparation for self defence and for preserving an institution in conditions of war has been recognised in the scholarly legal opinion as the exercise of a constitutional right and not a crime. Under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights this is an expression of a civic position and of planning for the future. It lies at the core of protected freedom of expression.
Quotation 2. “The prosecutor’s office, the investigation, the court and the FSB”
“So we are interested in the prosecutor’s office, we are interested in the investigation and the court, and we are interested in the border service. These are the three elements. It is clear that they will put their own mayor here. There is no need to poke our noses in there because that is the FSB and so on and so forth. But the prosecutor’s office is a very good thing. On the one hand it gives us security and the fight against enemies of the people, and on the other hand it provides protection for our organisation. They will report that a new government in Ukraine in Odesa has been established, thank God.”
VIDEO N2.
YouTube:“In case of occupation, we must shield civilian resistance from instant destruction”
https://youtu.be/zK9f21Lf8Qw
There is no call here to help the FSB or to destroy the Ukrainian state. The discussion concerns how to survive and avoid destruction in a possible situation if the city comes under the control of the occupation administration, and also how to help Ukraine as an underground in occupied territory.
This fully corresponds to the policy and official appeals of the state to its citizens at the beginning of the war. From the point of view of the European Convention it is an opinion about the structure of power in a hypothetical occupation, coloured by sharp religious and sarcastic formulas.
Quotation 3. “No one to rely on except ourselves”
“And that’s why we’ve got bugger-all to rely on except ourselves. Whether we like it or not, sooner or later the “Rashkas” will roll into Odesa and start fucking with our heads—LNR lot, DNR lot, plain old Russians, the whole circus. And the moment they show up, we’ve got to grab the situation by the scruff of the neck straight away and not let them get too comfy.
Because everyone gets it: if we keep things under control, they can’t just nick the food, loot the shops, and do whatever the hell they fancy. But if we pull the Kherson trick—“not my problem, I’m keeping my head down”—then obviously they’ll ransack everything, beat people senseless, and run riot exactly as they please.”
VIDEO N3.
YouTube: “No one to rely on except ourselves”
https://youtu.be/Cv39DQLl1ms
Ukrainian legislation recognises the right to necessary defence, including the use of force against armed criminals and invaders. A statement of readiness to defend oneself and others even at the cost of the attacker’s life fits into the logic of necessary defence and not terrorist violence. The key criterion under the European Convention is the presence of a direct call to a concrete crime. In this case there is no such call. Moreover at the beginning of the war the state officially freed from criminal liability those citizens of Ukraine who would use their legal weapons against armed Russian military personnel, for which a law was adopted.
Quotation 4. “If someone’s shooting at you, you don’t stop to think.”
“I see four clear tiers of weapon use. First tier: gas. We have excellent gas canisters that knock a person out for forty minutes, and we’re bringing equally good “soft” agents that drop someone for up to fifteen minutes. So, in my view, during wartime we should start with gas and less-lethal rounds whenever possible, provided there’s no immediate need for smooth-bore or rifled firearms. In other words, assess the situation on the ground. If they can be stopped with gas, there’s no need to reach for a rifle; we can just zip-tie them with plastic cuffs and “very well” – job done. Understood?
If we do need to neutralise an armed individual at close range, a .45-calibre less-lethal round to the chest is more than “good”. A 9 mm less-lethal does the trick just as nicely. And a burst of four or five flash-bang or rubber-baton rounds leaves the target not merely incapacitated but flat on the floor, trying to remember his own name. At that point the next tier comes into play: we level smooth-bore shotguns and calmly explain that the follow-up will be 12-gauge. Hands up, weapons down. Simple.
Killing them is, of course, an option – and sometimes a necessity. The moment we’re dealing with armed bandits, hesitation goes out the window: 12-gauge shotguns come in. We prefer shotguns because we want them alive – badly hurt, but alive and able to talk. Rifled weapons are reserved for active firefights. If someone is shooting at you, or about to, you don’t think twice – you return lethal fire with rifles. No debate.
So the escalation ladder looks like this:
Non-armed confrontation (weapons may be present but holstered, slung, or safety-on and pointed away): gas and less-lethal.
Armed bandits: less-lethal plus shotguns.
Incoming fire or imminent lethal threat: rifles, no second thoughts.
Three scenarios – confrontation, bandits, firefight – and the tool matches the threat. Clear?”
VIDEO N4.
YouTube: “If someone’s shooting at you, you don’t stop to think”
https://youtu.be/GiiRig8aAbc
The described hierarchy of levels shows an intention to minimise violence, using the most severe means only when there is a direct threat to life. Again the subject is hypothetical scenarios of clashes with armed criminals or enemy soldiers, not attacks on Ukrainian state bodies.
The same conclusion is reached by forensic experts of the Bokarius Forensic Science Institute under the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Their finding is unequivocal: the video discusses the use of weapons solely for the purpose of self-defence.
Quotation 5. “To control all branches of power” and “to enter on bayonets”
“Under this new regime it would be very cool if we controlled all branches of power. We will come in, the first unit will carry us in in their arms, on bayonets.”
VIDEO N5.
YouTube: “If Russia occupies Odessa, we’ll have to seize control of all government branches to stop them crushing the Ukrainian underground”
https://youtu.be/ZKY0RWqH_9o
The phrase about bayonets is clearly metaphorical. It is an emotional image, not a description of a real operation. The conversation is about the desire to ensure that after the war people who, as an underground, will help the Ukrainian state in an occupied territory end up in the prosecutor’s office, the courts and other bodies. This corresponds to the official policy of Ukraine at the beginning of the war.
General conclusion on the quotations
Taken together, the statements show no direct calls to the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian authorities, no plans for terrorist acts and no plans for attacks on state bodies. They show discussion of hypothetical scenarios for the defence of people and infrastructure in conditions of war and possible occupation.
International reaction and significance of the case
The Maltsev case has already been raised at the United Nations Human Rights Council and at the OSCE. Human Rights Without Frontiers and other human rights organisations stress that not only the rights of one scholar are at stake but also a wider question. Can Ukraine defend itself against external aggression without destroying its own legal foundations.
Conclusion
The case of Dr Oleg Maltsev is a painful example of how in conditions of war the state system can begin to criminalise precisely those rights that it is obliged to protect. These are the right to life, the right to self defence and the right to freedom of expression. Accusations built on the discussion of plans for self defence and survival create a dangerous precedent for civil society as a whole. The international community should follow the development of this case closely and insist on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms in Ukraine.
