Ukrainian news outlet Priboi News has released new details on the controversial case of Ukrainian scientist Oleg Maltsev, who was detained last month on charges that have sparked widespread debate. The case, which involves allegations of paramilitary formations and affiliations with foreign intelligence, is now facing mounting scrutiny as a series of reported errors raise questions about the legitimacy of the charges.
Dr. Maltsev, a well-known academic in Ukraine, was detained on September 12 by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), accused of orchestrating underground paramilitary groups in the coastal city of Odesa. According to the SBU, these combat teams—reportedly composed of snipers, intelligence units, and an assault group—were tasked with seizing local administrative buildings. However, lawyers and observers are increasingly pointing to inconsistencies and procedural oversights that cast doubt on the foundation of the case.
Questionable Detentions and Unexpected Detainees
A recent development in the case involved the October 14 detention of two women—one an Italian translator and the other a psychologist—alleged by the SBU to be members of Maltsev’s supposed “paramilitary group.” Lawyer Yevgenia Tarasenko described the women as standing no taller than 165 cm and weighing less than 55 kg, suggesting they hardly fit the traditional profile of militant operatives. Tarasenko pointed out that most of the weapons seized during searches at Dr. Maltsev’s home were hunting or sporting rifles, some as long as 115 cm.*
Commentators rightly point out that it’s hard to imagine an Italian translator and a psychologist storming government buildings, armed with rifles nearly two-thirds their height, all while wearing military gear weighing a third of their body weight.
The lawyer also questioned the credibility of the accusations, noting that the psychologist, despite being detained, was neither listed as a witness nor a suspect in the case and had no formal role in the investigation.
Among those detained was also a German journalist who had been involved in science journalism in Ukraine well before the war began. On his way back to Cologne, he was detained without any grounds for suspicion. Previously questioned as a witness, he faced no preventive measures or travel restrictions. The detention of an EU citizen and accredited journalist has prompted outrage among press freedom advocates, who argue that such actions reflect a troubling disregard for transparency and the rule of law.
A Show of Force, or Something Else?
Perhaps what has garnered the most attention is the manner in which these detainees were handled. The two detained women were transported to court in a highly visible show of force, each escorted by four armed guards wearing masks and carrying automatic weapons, as if they were dangerous criminals.
Commentators argue that this kind of treatment, especially toward individuals without a violent record, is emblematic of an attempt to intimidate and project authority over the accused—sending a message that disobedience will be met with overwhelming force, regardless of the actual threat level. Legal analysts have questioned whether this display was intended to intimidate, humiliate, and stoke fear? They argue that the use of such force is often less about actual security concerns and more about imposing psychological pressure. In cases like this, where the detained individuals seem far from posing a genuine threat, these tactics may erode public trust in law enforcement.
Growing Concerns Over Procedural Integrity
The Maltsev case has highlighted a fundamental issue not only in Ukraine but also globally: the reluctance of special services to admit mistakes, even as their missteps become increasingly evident. In this case, violations continue to occur, and the growing number of mistakes in the Maltsev investigation reveals not only an unwillingness to acknowledge them but also a reluctance to prevent new ones from emerging. This, in turn, calls into question the legitimacy of the case and raises doubts about whether the investigation itself might be the real misstep.
What started as an operation against a suspected paramilitary organization is now increasingly viewed as a potential failure of procedural justice. The path forward remains unclear, and the outcome is uncertain. It is also unclear whether authorities will re-evaluate their approach or press forward despite the growing criticism.
*Note: Oleg Maltsev conducts research on the workings of the mind, and as part of this scientific work, skeet shooting was selected as a research model. The seized equipment was intended for sports training and scientific observations conducted at the range.