Читати українською

Dmytro Koshelnyk is someone who has seen Ukrainian IT from every angle. Having spent over a decade in business journalism interviewing the founders of the country's most successful products, such as MacPaw, Reface, and Petcube, he has accumulated a unique understanding of how great things are built. Today, he has moved from documenting history to actively creating it as the Chief Portfolio Officer at Mission Possible.
Mission Possible is not just an accelerator; it is a full-fledged platform for founders with global ambitions. Working with founders at the pre-seed stage, the team helps startups navigate the "Death Valley"—a critical period where resources are scarce and help is most needed. At a time when the challenges of war dictate new terms, Mission Possible creates an environment where Ukrainian resilience is converted into a strategic advantage.
In this interview, Dmytro talks about his path from media to venture building, the philosophy of "institutional design," and why physical presence in Kyiv is critical for success today. He shares a vision of how Ukrainian founders can compete on the world stage, using their unique experience as leverage for impact.

You spent over 10 years interviewing the founders of MacPaw, Reface, Petcube, Fedoriv—people who built things. What exactly did you see from the inside that made you move from documenting the ecosystem to building it?I came into journalism after my own (deeply failed) founder experience. The main goal was exactly to figure out how everything works and to build a network. Around the end of 2022, I felt that I had figured it out, but simultaneously became convinced that, at least for now, I don't want to be a founder.
One of the triggers to switch was a conversation with Andriy Fedoriv in 2023. He recalled his experience in journalism and the switch to marketing—"when you work as a business journalist, you talk to many very talented and successful people, but over time the feeling arises that everyone is working while you are just writing." That was the case for me as well.
I was looking for a direction where I could scale my impact and bring as much benefit as possible. I got interested in venture capital, where I have many acquaintances. Then there were several courses and an internship at a fund. In the process, I became even more convinced that the biggest problem in Ukraine is being at pre-seed, when you have nothing yet, no one will give you money, and not many are ready to truly help—the "long Death Valley from which most will not find an exit." This is exactly what I work with at Mission Possible.
Journalist -> Accelerator COO -> Chief Portfolio Officer—these are very different roles. Which media skill has proven most valuable in working with startup founders? And which one was useless?Yes, about six months ago I transitioned to the position of Chief Portfolio Officer. It’s no longer about "ops"; it’s direct work with founders and strategic portfolio development. Essentially, I handle the full cycle—from selection to post-program support.

The transition from journalism to VC isn’t unique. My benchmark was Mike Moritz—the Time editor who became one of Sequoia’s key partners. But honestly, the most valuable thing journalism gave me is a habit: the drive to understand how things actually work, rather than how they appear on the surface.

Specifically, this manifests in three things:

First — Analytics. I’m used to deconstructing cases, conducting market research, and identifying patterns. In the startup world, this is a daily tool.

Second — Networking. Specifically, the ability to build a network based on trust rather than a job title. A journalist is nothing without trust. The same applies to the ecosystem.

Third — Execution under tight constraints. Being an editor-in-chief is essentially "founder mode": a big goal, a small team, and a constant lack of time and money.

As for "useless" skills, it’s hard to say. I suppose I write much less now and don’t do any editing. That’s understandable—our Head of Comms, Andriy Lisovyi, doesn't need any help there, for which I am immensely grateful.

Your LinkedIn profile includes the phrase: “Driving civilization-scale impact through tech & institutional design.” What specifically does “institutional design” mean in the context of Mission Possible? Are you building an accelerator or something more?Let me start from the end. It wouldn’t be right to say “I am building”; at Mission Possible, the team component is vital—so, “we are building.” There are currently seven people on the team, and all of them are A-players with a mission that goes beyond just running an acceleration program; we are building an ecosystem.

Overall, we have grown over the last two years, and today Mission Possible is a full-fledged platform for startup founders building tech companies with global ambitions. Our mission is to support the boldest founders and help Ukrainian startups become global companies.

As for “institutional design,” we at Mission Possible—and I personally—don’t believe that even a top-tier acceleration program is enough to simply have a positive impact on the Ukrainian ecosystem; it needs to be elevated to a fundamentally new level. A full-fledged institution is required, and building that is our primary focus right now.
Mission Possible has chosen an unconventional model: a physical presence in Kyiv, 5–6 months of intensive work, and 2.5% equity. What does a founder lose if they opt out of the offline format in favor of an online one?Online can give you certain knowledge or frameworks, but it feels too virtual—like, “here is my regular life and work, and somewhere over there, I occasionally work on a startup.” In contrast, offline is about a full commitment to building that startup. It’s also about the exchange of experience and networking.

It is difficult to create anything significant in this world—especially a tech company—without knowing the right people. In a purely online environment, this component doesn’t work well.

It’s a completely different experience to attend our Founder Breakfast to talk with people like Sacha Michaud (co-founder of Glovo), Roman Prokofyev (founder of Jooble), or Max Shtepa (founder and CEO of SKELAR). Or consider our Board with Entrepreneur in Residence format, where your decisions are challenged by Stas Vozniak (CEO and co-founder of Cargofy), Roman Apostol (CEO and co-founder of Mate academy), or Yaroslav Boiko and Oles Petriv (co-founders of Reface). And those are just two of our formats.

Another crucial factor is the peer-to-peer effect. You aren't building in isolation or with abstract people online. You are in a room with 24+ people from your batch who have their own expertise and are facing similar problems. Solving them together is much faster and easier. Plus, there is the competitive element: while you’re trying to launch a product, someone else has already closed their third client and is growing their MRR. Entrepreneurs are highly competitive; to avoid falling behind, they start moving faster.
You say Mission Possible is an “environment where a startup can grow twice as fast.” Which company from Batch I or II best illustrates this, and what specifically accelerated its growth?Crosscheck, which has raised over $700,000 in investment. I think it would be more appropriate to ask Bohdan what helped him most, but generally, I believe the acceleration at MP is driven by three things provided by our community and partners:

First — 200+ partners and mentors, including funds and angels. This isn't just a contact list. These are people who can do three vital things: challenge a founder’s decision before they waste three months on it; show a shortcut to a specific problem; and open doors to people who would otherwise be unreachable for years.

Second — the peer-to-peer effect. Being in a room with 24+ founders who have similar problems but different experiences is powerful. When someone next to you closes their third client while you're still testing a hypothesis, it’s a much stronger signal than any lecture on speed.

Third — an environment of total commitment. Online, there’s always an option to procrastinate because the program stays "somewhere in the cloud." The offline format physically removes those exits because you are surrounded by people who are actively building. I think it becomes psychologically harder to stop than it is to keep going.

You describe the ideal participant in two words: ambition and responsibility. What is the most common mistake made by founders who pass the selection process but then fail to realize the program’s potential?They assume that getting into Mission Possible is a success in itself. We open up a vast array of opportunities, but you have to actually use them. Sometimes, a founder starts "consuming" the program instead of building the business. They attend every event and socialize, but the metrics don’t grow and commitments aren't met. There is activity, but no progress.

Right at the start, we always explain: the next 4.5 months of the program are the moment you become visible to the ecosystem, investors, and the media. Your job is to build the business, leverage the advantages of MP, and scale your metrics.

The market is brutal toward startups that think they have plenty of time. If you don’t show extraordinary growth within a year, your chances of raising capital are slim. And don’t forget about competitors elsewhere creating similar solutions.
There is a common narrative: “Ukrainian founders are heroic, but they are survivors.” Mission Possible seems to be trying to flip this script. When you see a founder truly transition from survival mode to strategic thinking—what does that look like? What changes in their behavior?I think at the pre-seed stage, everyone is in survival mode. It’s a universal state for any founder at the beginning: you’re clinging to an idea, trying to prove to yourself and the market that it has a right to exist, and almost all your resources go toward simply not stopping. The war adds another layer to this—harder raises, lower valuations, and real threats to life during shelling.

The transition to strategic thinking is about a shift in how one approaches building a business. It is palpable because the person clearly understands what kind of company they are building and what is required for results, while discarding everything irrelevant to achieving that goal.

Outwardly, it looks like this: the founder comes to a meeting with very specific requests that will help them take the next steps on their roadmap. It’s a small difference in words, but a massive one in mindset.

How does a founder who went through Mission Possible during missile alerts and blackouts explain this as a competitive advantage to an international investor? What specific talking point would you recommend?The worst thing you can do is lead with the context of the war. When you do that, the investor hears "things are difficult for us"—and immediately starts thinking about the risks. The correct logic is the reverse. First, you show results: MRR, growth, customers, and metrics. Only then, as a point of reinforcement, do you add the context.

The talking point I would recommend is: “My main competitor operates in a stable environment with full access to resources. Our metrics are the same—or mine are better.” After that, the question of risk becomes much less significant. An investor realizes: if this team builds like this under pressure, imagine what they will do once that pressure is lifted.
Have you seen a situation where a startup in the program—consciously or unconsciously—"stalled" due to the weight of the war context, and what helped unblock them?I haven't seen a direct "stop because of the war" yet. However, I have seen founders who, without realizing it, began to use the war context as an excuse to lower their standards and avoid making difficult decisions. When this happened, the most effective way to unblock them wasn't motivational, but operational: returning to metrics and specific next steps.

Mission Possible is sector-agnostic, but your founders build in an environment where every technology potentially becomes dual-use. How do you view this balance: civilian innovation vs. defense readiness?We don’t work with defense. However, I am all for having as many technological solutions as possible that help us win the war. Naturally, my work—and the work of everyone at Mission Possible—is complicated by the fact that a significant amount of talent is currently choosing defense, and that’s where a large portion of funding and state support is directed. But those are the realities.

There is a risk that is rarely discussed: if the civilian track halts for the duration of the war, we will effectively be rebuilding from scratch after the victory. This is far more costly—in terms of money, time, and people. At Mission Possible, we are betting that this foundation can and should be built right now.
Oxford Saïd, UMAEF—Mission Possible has gathered strong institutional support. What do you think international partners still underestimate or misunderstand about Ukrainian tech founders?I think the partners you mentioned actually understand the strengths and advantages of Ukrainian founders quite well. That’s why they are with us. As for others, there are two things that are systematically underestimated:

First — Determination as an operational trait. It’s the daily ability to make difficult decisions under uncertainty and keep moving. A founder who built a company during blackouts and shelling has a different "decision-making muscle"—and this directly impacts how they will behave in a crisis on the international market.

Second — High tolerance for uncertainty. Most founders in stable countries are only just learning how to work with uncertainty. Ukrainian founders grew up in an environment where uncertainty is the background noise: economic crises, political instability, war. This helps them be more effective in situations that would paralyze others.
Mission Possible positions itself as a stepping stone to YC or Techstars. What should the next version of the program look like in 3 years to not just prepare founders for YC—but to compete with it for the attention of the best founders?To achieve this, several things are needed:
Upfront funding: Without it, competing for the best founders against top-tier accelerators is impossible.
Kyiv as a physical magnet: For international founders, this is only possible after victory and a sustainable peace.
Portfolio cases: We need results that speak for themselves—dozens of companies with Seed and Series A investments and strong international traction that started here.

But most importantly, we need a reputation for being an environment where founders with a specific DNA are born: those who build under pressure, think globally, and don’t have a habit of giving up. You can't copy that from someone else; it has to be built. Realistically, it will likely take more than three years.
You write about long-termism and civilization-scale impact—yet you daily manage startups with 18-month runways and founders under immense pressure. How do you personally maintain these two horizons simultaneously?This is something I’ve tried to understand about myself. Whatever I’ve done, it’s always been easy for me to combine a long-term vision with a relatively short planning horizon. I recently took the Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment, and my top talent was Futuristic. That’s about seeing trends and living in a future that doesn’t exist yet. I think there’s something to that.

On a less deep level, I don’t see these as two modes I switch between—it’s one process on two levels at once. When I sit down with a founder who has an 18-month runway, I am simultaneously solving a specific problem and reading it as a signal of a broader pattern. Helping a founder now and understanding why their problems are part of a wider trend are effectively the same question on different levels. So, a long-term vision doesn't distract from operational reality; it provides strategic context.

In general, it's vital to have a broad long-term vision when working with a portfolio like ours. A portfolio strategy is, one way or another, a reflection of a certain version of the world's future development, and you need to select companies with founders capable of realizing it.
How does participating in Techosystem help the Mission Possible accelerator?Regarding Techosystem, I don't believe in closed ecosystems. My participation in Techosystem and its board works on three levels:
Exchange of experience with people building other parts of the same ecosystem. This is a constant reality check for my own ideas and approaches.
Joint action where working alone is less effective: developing the regulatory environment and international representation.
Building international presence for the Ukrainian ecosystem and its overall reputation.
If Mission Possible reaches its maximum potential in 10 years—what does that result look like? Not in metrics, but in terms of what changes in Ukraine and the world?In 10 years, Mission Possible is a full-fledged institution with its own culture and DNA—recognizable by our founders and the companies they’ve built. Also, MP stops being just a place people come to at the beginning; it becomes a place they return to.

Alumni who have built successful companies become investors and partners for future batches, programs, and initiatives.

But there is one specific image that, for me, is the most accurate indicator of success: A talented Ukrainian who is currently choosing between a career in a global corporation and building their own company—chooses the latter. They choose it because they see real examples of people who built something significant while staying in Ukraine, and they know there is an environment that will support them.