What happened
The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has decided to allow athletes from Russia and Belarus to compete under their national flags. Sky News and UNN report on Ukraine’s reaction.
President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a video interview with Piers Morgan, said he was not informed about the decision, and his first reaction — equally emotional — described it as “disrespectful”: he characterized the decision as "dirty" and "horrible".
"This is a dirty and horrible decision... It is disrespectful"
— Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine
As a result, Ukrainian officials have announced they will not attend the Winter Paralympic Games, scheduled for 6–15 March. Earlier, Ukraine had urged the IPC not to give Russia and Belarus a platform at the Paralympics (reported by UNN).
Why it matters
The issue is not only the presence of individual athletes. The IPC’s decision has several dimensions that concern readers’ interests: legitimization, propaganda, and the moral signal.
First, allowing competition under national flags potentially contributes to the normalization of regimes waging war against Ukraine, turning the sporting arena into a place of political communication. Second, it is a matter of prestige and psychological support for those affected: for many Ukrainian athletes and families, such a step is perceived as an affront to their experience and losses. Third, in the short term the decision increases the risk of diplomatic complications for organizers and for countries considering participation or cooperation with the IPC.
International media (Sky News) are already writing about this and point out that sports organizations now face a choice between technocratic rules and geopolitical responsibility.
Consequences and questions for the IPC
The most immediate and obvious consequence is a boycott by Ukraine, which makes the participation of Ukrainian delegations impossible and increases pressure on the IPC. Beyond that is the precedent: will international sports organizations gradually restore full participation for states that commit aggression without clear political and reputational guarantees?
The key question: can the IPC explain why this decision aligns with the principles of inclusivity and fairness without undermining the trust of affected communities and international partners? The answer will determine whether sport remains a neutral space, or becomes yet another arena of geopolitics.
Next move lies with the IPC’s partners and national Olympic committees: declarations about the «purity of sport» must now be turned into clear mechanisms that address both security challenges and the moral expectations of societies.
