Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Ukraine to boycott the closing ceremony of the 2026 Paralympics — in response to Russia and Belarus being allowed to compete

As a sign of protest against the admission of Russian and Belarusian delegations under their national flags, the Ukrainian team refuses to attend the closing ceremony of the Games on March 15 — a political signal and a test for the International Paralympic Committee.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 15, 2026 · 2 min read

Ukraine to boycott the closing ceremony of the 2026 Paralympics — in response to Russia and Belarus being allowed to compete
Українські спортсмени (Фото: Національний паралімпійський комітет)

A Clear Signal Instead of Attendance

The National Paralympic Committee of Ukraine (according to Suspilne) announced that the team will collectively boycott the closing ceremony of the 2026 Winter Paralympic Games, which will take place on March 15 at 21:30 Kyiv time. The decision is motivated by the fact that delegations from Russia and Belarus, allowed to participate under their national flags, will be present at the ceremony.

Why This Matters

This is not merely an emotional gesture. Allowing athletes from states that are waging a full-scale war against Ukraine is perceived as a step toward normalization — and it is precisely this that the Ukrainian stance opposes. The decision of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has sparked a number of scandals: as early as February 18 it became known that certain Russian and Belarusian athletes were admitted under their own flags, and on March 2 the IPC banned the Ukrainian team from entering competitions in parade uniforms bearing the map, calling it "political" (a decision that was critically commented on by the foreign minister). On March 11 Ukraine publicly condemned the discrimination against its team and fans.

The Team's Position and the Athlete's Voice

At the closing ceremony the Ukrainian team intends not to be present, although some formalities will be finally confirmed at the team's general meeting. Ukrainian Paralympian Hryhoriy Vovchynskyi described the emotion and logic of the protest as follows:

"We haven't yet discussed the closing ceremony, but I think our position is 100% clear, because the International Paralympic Committee... There are no words to describe what has happened here. How can these countries that continue the war in Ukraine still be here?"

— Hryhoriy Vovchynskyi, Paralympian

Context and Consequences

The social and diplomatic effect of this step is significant. Refusing to participate in the ceremony is a way to draw the attention of the media, partners, and the sporting community to issues of justice and security. Social proof in the form of support is noticeable: Ukraine was also not represented at the opening — additionally about 15 countries ignored the opening ceremony. On the sporting front the "blue-and-yellows" have already won 18 medals (3 — gold) and occupy seventh place in the medal standings; China leads (42 medals, 18 gold).

What Next?

The boycott of the closing ceremony is a signal to the IPC and the international community: declarations about inclusion must be paired with a clear stance on aggression and human rights. Now the question is up to organizers and partners: will international sport be seduced by procedural neutrality over principles, or will responsibility prevail?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026