The Paradox of War Democracy: From the Mobilization of Bottom-Up Resistance to Its Criminalization

Since the post-Euromaidan battle for Donbass began in 2014, Ukraine’s civil society has been in a permanent state of mass mobilization, drawing in untrained volunteers who are willing to ‘fight for their country.’ When Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the mobilization reached a new level of urgency, encompassing all sectors of society, including academia. Karuna Daryna discusses the case of Dr. Oleg Maltsev to shed light on a paradox: the state can promote a form of war democracy by encouraging self-organization without supporting its citizens in claiming true democratic agency.

*

In the spring of 2022, Ukraine faced an existential threat and urged its citizens to organize. Two years later, those same calls to prepare for resistance became grounds for criminal prosecution. Dr. Oleg Maltsev, a scientist and lawyer from Odesa, is a case in point. The state encouraged his initiative during the crisis but punished him when stability returned. This demonstrates a fundamental contradiction of wartime.

The preparedness policy of 2022

At the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian authorities realistically assessed the limits of state protection. Official communications urged citizens in frontline regions to develop evacuation plans, protect critical infrastructure, and prepare for potential occupation. This logic reflected the strategic document on comprehensive defense adopted in early 2022, which envisioned the mobilization of ‘the full potential of the state and society.’ For Odesa, a strategic Black Sea city whose fate was uncertain in spring 2022, these calls were grounded in reality. Against the backdrop of the situation in Kherson and Mariupol, where local communities were effectively left to cope alone under occupation, these appeals looked especially urgent and realistic.

Dr. Maltsev and his colleagues from the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EUASU) developed three priorities for the event of an occupation: ensuring personnel safety, preserving the institution’s material and technical resources, and organizing self-funded resistance independent of state structures. They funded these priorities with their own resources and with support from American and European colleagues. In the context of 2022, these measures corresponded to Ukraine’s official policy and the logic of national resistance legislation.

The criminalization of foresight

In May 2024, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) initiated criminal proceedings against Maltsev. In September, he was arrested and placed in a pretrial detention center in Odesa (SIZO) on charges of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and establishing an illegal paramilitary group. What qualified as responsible planning in 2022 was reinterpreted as conspiracy in 2024. On September 13, 2024, Judge Dmytro Osiik placed Maltsev in custody without the possibility of bail, where he has remained for over 15 months. Six of his employees were also arrested.

The defense and human rights observers have not seen any evidence beyond the expert analysis of video recordings of Dr. Maltsev’s meetings with employees of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EUASU). In other words, the reason for the criminal case, arrest, and prolonged detention of the Ukrainian scientist in the Odesa SIZO is the SBU research unit’s interpretation of his words, expressed in the context of security considerations. Dr. Maltsev is not accused of committing any illegal actions or causing harm; rather, he is accused of emphasizing the need to protect Odesa from occupation authorities and looters during exchanges with colleagues.

Notably, the case materials (published by HRWF in November 2025) include a video recording in which Maltsev openly states that he was preparing an underground resistance in Odesa with the help of US and European colleagues in case of occupation by Russian forces. However, the investigation stubbornly pretends that neither this position nor the video itself exists.

This case exemplifies an institutional issue: a state that encourages citizen initiative during a crisis may criminalize that initiative when the threat subsides. The accusatory logic transforms the right to life and self-defense into evidence of subversion. Evacuation measures, food supplies, and infrastructure protection are interpreted as preparations for forming an illegal paramilitary group.

Judicial procedures and security service pressure

Details of Maltsev’s detention reveal the dysfunction of a judicial system under pressure from security agencies. Despite his serious and worsening health problems, which, by international standards, should have led to his release, Maltsev has been held in SIZO without bail for over 15 months. His lawyers assert that he is being driven to death in detention, which violates Ukraine’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Procedural anomalies further raise concerns: the medical certificate justifying Maltsev’s detention in the Odesa SIZO was issued by an unauthorized doctor, and the presence of SBU officers at court hearings calls into question the judges’ independence. In April 2025, Maltsev’s lawyer, Olha Panchenko, a member of the Ukrainian National Bar Association Committee for the Protection of Lawyers’ Professional Rights, was detained as part of the same criminal case she was defending.

Corruption as a systemic problem

The Maltsev case unfolds against the backdrop of high-profile corruption scandals in Ukraine. At the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council in March 2025, the French human rights organization CAP/Liberté de Conscience delivered an oral statement through its representative, Christine Mirre. The statement named SBU counterintelligence officer Yevgeniy Volosheniuk as the likely organizer of the fabricated criminal case against Dr. Maltsev and called for an impartial investigation and compliance with international fair trial guarantees.

In October 2025, during the fifth plenary session, Rule of Law II, at the largest annual OSCE human rights conference, Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF), a human rights organization based in Belgium, presented a detailed report on the procedural aspects of Ukrainian scientist and lawyer Oleg Maltsev’s case. The report examined violations of procedural actions by judges in Maltsev’s case in detail. Coincidentally, immediately after the HRWF report at the OSCE conference, Ukrainian courts released five of Dr. Maltsev’s colleagues on minimal bail (60,000 UAH) after they had been held in SIZO for about a year. However, Maltsev himself remains in custody. According to his lawyers, his health has significantly deteriorated during this time.

Against this backdrop, five criminal cases have been opened against Ruslan Voitov, the prosecutor in the Maltsev case, in just the last three months. However, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) is not conducting investigations for some reason.

These allegations highlight broader issues within law enforcement in Ukraine. For example, Operation Midas, led by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), exposed a widespread corruption network in the energy sector involving the laundering of at least $100 million in November 2025. This money belongs to Ukrainian and US taxpayers.

Paradoxically, such abuses do not strengthen state security. Rather, they undermine the legal distinction between Ukraine and its aggressor. A judicial system that tolerates questionable medical conclusions, detains defenders, and ignores procedural guarantees does not protect national security; rather, it corrodes the rule of law.

Strategic consequences for wartime democracy

Every political trial sends a message. The message of the Maltsev case is that citizens could consider themselves potential partisans and members of the underground resistance when the state was on the verge of collapse. Now, however, they must forget these promises because the front has stabilized. This duality has long-term consequences for civic trust and democratic agency at large. A state that criminalizes yesterday’s democratic participation (read also: self-organization) will not cultivate active citizens. It teaches them to be silent and inactive.

For European institutions that supported Ukraine against Russia’s aggression in a timely and appropriate manner, such cases present a dilemma. Supporting Ukraine means providing military aid and persistently demanding compliance with the legal standards Ukraine has set for itself within the framework of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its aspirations for EU membership.