Our conversation is with Kim Borisovich Kanevsky, a recipient of the Honored Journalist of Ukraine title, granted by a Presidential Decree. Kanevsky is the editor-in-chief of the Literary and Scientific newsletter of Hrushevsky, a respected journal that covers science, literature, the arts, and socio-political issues. He is an honorary member of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, a scholar-philologist, graphic artist, and the author of multiple books, including In the Country of Journalism, co-authored with Academician O. V. Maltsev. Previously, Kanevsky was editor-in-chief of GosTV, a senior lecturer at the journalism department at Mechnikov National University, and an associate professor at International Humanitarian University in Odessa. Additionally, he has served as chairman of the Civil Council for the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Odessa and was a member of the board and personnel commission at the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Reporter: Kim, do you personally know Academician Maltsev? What can you tell us about him as a scientist?
Kim Kanevsky: My acquaintance with Oleg Maltsev began when he made what I consider a historic decision to revive the journal Literary and Scientific newsletter of Hrushevsky, which was founded in the 19th century by Academician Hrushevsky himself, the first president of independent Ukraine, who was executed by Stalin in the 1930s. He invited me to serve as the editor-in-chief, while Academician Maltsev was elected as the head of the editorial board for this unique publication. I was interested in him as a scientist and I participated in the publication of his works as a literary editor. I was particularly eager to engage in this work because the materials I edited were extremely interesting and captivating to me; I learned a great deal in the process.
Regarding his work as a scientist, I was fortunate to attend many of Dr. Maltsev’s lectures and discussions, as well as continental and international conferences and symposia, where I had the opportunity to coordinate and lead some of them. In my view, this was genuine and significant science. Both domestic and international eminent scientists view his contributions this way. Consequently, the criticisms aimed at him, such as calling him a “pseudo scientist,” are, to say the least, ridiculous and unfounded.
Reporter: Have you ever heard that Oleg Maltsev supported Russia?
Kim Kanevsky: No, I haven’t heard that. However, I have repeatedly heard Maltsev express quite the opposite. For me, it is sufficient to know that he returned to Ukraine despite being abroad and aware of serious suspicions against him. What other evidence do you require?
Reporter: How would you describe the accusation against him?
Kim Kanevsky: I struggle to believe that the accusations against him could be true—it’s almost impossible for me. Interestingly, I learned about this only from the tabloid press, and at first, I didn’t take it seriously at all. You can’t believe everything that’s said in Odesa. You can hear all sorts of things here. There was a time when the media reported that “…Meridian burst on Peresypy (a Odesa neighborhood).” Yet, when this content was published repeatedly across various media, particularly the tabloids, it appeared to be some foolish dream—a common street sensation in the Southwest. And now, in the case of Maltsev, it sometimes feels like a nightmare from which you want to wake up and say, “Thank God, it was just a dream!” In reality, I find the situation simply absurd.
Reporter: Despite the clear absurdity, Oleg Maltsev is currently in custody. Would you like to add anything to what has been said, perhaps some words of support or well wishes?
Kim Kanevsky: First, I want to point out an obvious truth: our journalism today resembles a public thoroughfare. Interestingly, Dr. Maltsev once “calmed” me by saying that science is in a similar state. This reality is incomparable to the significant responsibilities that journalists have historically undertaken. Their main objective (super-objective) should be to shape and stabilize public perception, not to exacerbate situations when they should be defusing them. Genuine journalists are always the intellectual, moral, and spiritual elite. I wish this tabloid culture and their employers—who Chekhov has referred to as somewhat ‘tabloid hacks’ in the 19th century—would awaken from this dream, raise their heads, and take the time to study history, journalism theory, and the criminal code. They must understand that they cannot act with impunity forever. The presumption of innocence is still a principle in our justice system. Even those with journalistic credentials do not dare to publicly declare a citizen a criminal outside of court in front of readers, listeners, and viewers.
Yes, judges can be wrong, too. As for Oleg Maltsev… In my long life, I have never experienced anything like what he’s going through now. But as a writer and reader, I can imagine and reconstruct the situation to try and understand how one might perceive it. After all, throughout history and literature, similar situations have occurred frequently, with a variety of outcomes. Sometimes, the accused turned out to be entirely innocent, while those who judged or were overly suspicious turned out to be guilty.
As far as I know, Academician Maltsev is an athletic man, which means he’s strong-willed, determined, purposeful, knows his value, and can stand up for himself. I have many wishes for him, but the most important is that he stays in good health until the truth comes to light. I look forward to meeting him on the outside soon, as we have much to talk about.