- Security guarantees for Ukraine will not be effective without US (Ukrainska Pravda, 2025)
- Today, the USA is the largest financial donor to Ukraine (Guardian, 2023).
- The United States is the axis of the Western civilized world and the global standard of democracy (CNN, 2024).
When Ukrainian authorities take decisive action against members of Putin’s regime and his military machinery, it wins applause from U.S. lawmakers. Even when the methods are controversial—or legally questionable—they’re often justified as necessary in wartime by politicians, analysts, media outlets, and the public. But when Ukrainian officials turn those same tactics on their own citizens—fabricating criminal charges and using KGB-style methods—it sparks confusion, outrage, and disappointment. These incidents reignite debates in the U.S. about whether continued large-scale aid to Ukraine is warranted. Concerns about Ukraine’s democratic backsliding quickly follow.
One such case involves Dr. Oleg Maltsev, a Ukrainian criminologist and sociologist well-known in academic circles across the U.S. He’s widely recognized as a pioneering scholar—not only by his supporters or sympathetic journalists but also by respected figures in the field. Sociologist Jerome Krase, who leads the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, where Dr. Maltsev is a member, has publicly endorsed his work. Many other experts share this view.
Dr. Maltsev is now facing political persecution in Ukraine. European media have called the charges against him fabricated, a sentiment echoed by several prominent human rights organizations. The #FreeUkrainianScientist campaign has gained international attention, with a petition calling on Human Rights Commissioner Michael O’Flaherty to advocate for Maltsev’s release from pretrial detention due to health concerns. The petition also calls for an independent investigation into his alleged mistreatment and stronger oversight of human rights in Ukrainian detention facilities.
We have no power to influence the Ukrainian government. However, we can offer our analysis and encourage a closer look at the situation through an American lens. With that in mind, we’ve chosen to explore how those driving the case against Oleg Maltsev might operate if similar events took place in the United States.
Using a Criminal Case to Pressure Dr. Maltsev Would Be Unthinkable in the United States
In the U.S., prosecutors are always mindful of two key factors: their track record and the potential consequences of their actions. Their track record—often measured by conviction rates—can significantly influence their career advancement, while the consequences can impact both their professional reputation and financial liability. Financial fallout, at either the state or federal level, can result from multimillion-dollar lawsuits filed by defendants in cases of prosecutorial misconduct.
The motivations of American prosecutors are effectively depicted in the movie Law Abiding Citizen. In the opening scenes, Nick Rice is introduced with a 96% conviction rate—a statistic that underscores his success and his ambition to become district attorney. Like many U.S. prosecutors, Rice is reluctant to take on cases that might jeopardize his numbers. His conviction rate represents not just his achievements, but also the foundation of his professional reputation and a stepping stone to higher office.
In Dr. Maltsev’s case, there are no victims or financial damages—only unproven claims of ties to Russia amid the war. After eight months of investigation, prosecutors have yet to produce any evidence to support these accusations. This suggests that Ukrainian prosecutors and investigators may not face the same professional or legal accountability that constrains their American counterparts. Unlike in the U.S., Ukraine lacks robust mechanisms for holding officials accountable for misconduct and does not impose significant financial penalties in such cases. That’s why cases like this are still possible in Ukraine, but not in the U.S.
Using the Media as a Tool for Pressure and Discrediting in the U.S. Is Possible, but Ineffective
Public opinion management in the United States relies on four key components: events, spokespersons, insider information, and budget. When the first three elements are lacking, an “extra” budget often fills the gaps—funding the creation of events, bringing in speakers, and fabricating insider narratives. It’s a legally gray strategy, but this is how elections and information wars are often won in the U.S. However, unlike in the U.S., where speculation and fantasy rarely play a role in this model, Ukraine frequently uses both to shape narratives.
In Maltsev’s case, media reports have leaned heavily on speculation and fabrication. The goal is clear: to demonize the Ukrainian scientist and paint him as a societal outcast. This approach mirrors what is commonly referred to in the U.S. as KGB tactics, where the media, at any cost, seek to legitimize politically motivated criminal cases. This tactic represents a troubling shift toward authoritarianism.
In the U.S., if similar defamatory materials were published, lawyers would file defamation, libel, and reputational damage lawsuits within a day. Media outlets responsible for such reports would likely face significant financial penalties. With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at the tactics used by Ukrainian media in Maltsev’s case.
The Label “Maltsev’s Cult” Would Never Be Used in American Media
In the Western world, the term “cult” (or “sect,” as it’s often called in CIS countries) is typically reserved for religious organizations. Since the early 2000s, scholars and experts have largely replaced this term with NRM (New Religious Movements). In the U.S., media outlets that attempt to apply the term “cult” to politicians or non-religious organizations risk defamation lawsuits and significant financial penalties. The same would apply in Dr. Maltsev’s case, as he has no affiliation with any religious organization.
Moreover, the label “cult” was originally a product of Russian propaganda aimed at discrediting Maltsev and his work.
The term “Maltsev’s cult” was first coined in 2014 by a Russian Orthodox Church-affiliated group, the Apologetic Center of Irenaeus of Lyons, which operated under the oversight of the FSB following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Therefore, adopting Russian propaganda narratives in American media could backfire, potentially leading to counterclaims by Maltsev’s legal team and, in some cases, even criminal investigations targeting media outlets and their leadership.
This raises an important question: why haven’t Ukrainian authorities banned the use of Russian propaganda narratives in their media, especially during an ongoing war with Russia?
Statements About Dr. Oleg Maltsev’s “Pseudoscientific” Activities Would Be Unthinkable in the U.S.
In the U.S., refuting such claims in court would require just one argument—the book Non-Compromised Pendulum. Co-authored by Dr. Maltsev and Tom Patti, a former student of the legendary boxing trainer Cus D’Amato, the book was a significant milestone for the American boxing community. Dr. Maltsev has authored dozens of similar works.
In addition, his research has been published in American Behavioral Scientist, a respected peer-reviewed journal. Given his credentials, no reputable U.S. media outlet would risk publishing unfounded claims about his work for fear of legal repercussions.
Using Insiders, ‘Sex Scandals,’ and Tax Leaks Is Common in the U.S.—But It’s Always Like Playing Russian Roulette
The use of insiders can yield significant results when targeting criminal, political, or business organizations in the U.S. However, this tactic is far less effective when aimed at academic institutions. Inserting insiders into the scientific community requires substantial time and resources, often making the effort economically unfeasible.
Moreover, the potential payoff is highly uncertain. What exactly could an insider report? Details about how Dr. Oleg Maltsev writes his books, conducts his research, or organizes scientific conferences are unlikely to capture the media’s attention or fuel any meaningful scandal.
Private Intelligence Agencies Can Be Used in the U.S., but They Come at a High Cost
The use of private intelligence agencies to resolve corporate and political conflicts has become so prevalent in the U.S. that it has seeped into popular culture. For example, in season 5 of Yellowstone, there is a scene involving a plot to assassinate Montana Governor John Dutton, orchestrated by a private intelligence firm. These types of operations can cost tens of millions of dollars and, in some cases, even result in the elimination of the clients themselves. This approach is not only exorbitantly expensive but also extremely dangerous for those who commission such actions.
In the case of Dr. Oleg Maltsev, who is neither a business magnate nor a holder of substantial capital, the use of such methods defies both logic and economic rationale. Consequently, the conditions for Maltsev’s scientific work in the U.S. appear far safer and more predictable than in modern Ukraine.
We sincerely hope that Dr. Oleg Maltsev and his team will soon achieve lawful justice in their homeland and be able to fully resume their scientific endeavors.
As for the people of Ukraine, we have stood with you and will continue to stand with you in this horrific war against Putin’s regime. However, in the pursuit of Western democratic ideals, Ukrainian authorities must abandon the use of outdated and oppressive tactics against their own citizens.
KGB-style methods have no place in a modern, civilized nation—they must be left in the past once and for all.
We anticipate that this message will reach our Ukrainian colleagues who monitor our platforms and receive our targeted communications. This includes not only journalists and industry experts but also diplomats and policymakers in Washington who are committed to supporting Ukraine’s bright and democratic future.
🇺🇦 SLAVA UKRAINE! 🇺🇦