Firm stance in Rome: not about politics — about respect

Italy’s sports minister Andrea Abodi openly criticized the decision of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) to allow Russian and Belarusian symbols at the Winter Paralympics in Italy. Abodi recalled a key fact: Russia’s full-scale invasion began between the Olympics and the Paralympics in Beijing 2022 — it effectively violated the principle of the Olympic truce that states observe during the Games.

"The decision to restore the flag, anthem and uniform of the aggressor country and its ally causes outrage and concern"

— Andrea Abodi, Italy’s sports minister

Abodi pointed out that in November 2025 the UN General Assembly supported a resolution related to the breach of the truce — it was backed by 165 of 193 countries. In his view, this is not about politics in the sense of party games, but about basic respect for the victims and for international norms.

Ukraine’s reaction and the diplomatic mechanism

Ukraine’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha confirmed the position: he called on officials to refrain from participating in the opening ceremony if the IPC’s decision is not reversed. Sybiha thanked Abodi for a "voice of reason," and also reported that officials from eight countries and representatives of the EU have already joined the boycott — and that list, he said, is likely to grow.

"I again repeat Ukraine’s appeal to officials of all countries to refrain from participating in the opening ceremony..."

— Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister

The reason for such a sharp reaction is simple: the IPC’s September 2025 decision to restore the national symbols of Russia and Belarus came, in effect, just hours before the organization's presidential election (Andrew Parsons), which raised doubts about the transparency of the procedure and political motives. For Ukraine and its partners this is not only a question of symbols, but a matter of precedent and trust in international sports institutions.

Context of incidents at this year’s Games

Accompanying events make the situation even more tense: during the Olympics opening ceremony the placard for the Ukrainian team was carried by a Russian-born woman who lives in Italy and opposes the war — this prompted a demand for an investigation from the Ukrainian MFA. Also, a Ukrainian skeleton racer was disqualified for intending to compete in a "helmet of remembrance" bearing images of fallen athletes — the IOC deemed this a violation of the Olympic Charter.

• The issue of symbols and distancing from the aggressor is already affecting perceptions of the Games and international decisions.
• For many countries, this is a test: can sports bodies combine protection of athletes’ rights with a principled stance on international law?

What’s next — outlook

The diplomatic effect is already palpable: the voices of officials and partners are pushing declarations to turn into practical steps — from boycotts of ceremonies to demands to revisit the IPC decision. The international community faces a choice: allow normalization of the aggressor country’s symbols without consequences, or insist on a line that protects both athletes and the moral standards of global sport.

Whether sports federation leaders and partner states have the political will to defend those standards is a question that will affect not only the Games’ image but also trust in global institutions going forward.