Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Sports

IPC allowed Russians and Belarusians to compete under national flags at the 2026 Paralympics — what this means for Ukraine

According to Sky News, the International Paralympic Committee has allocated 6 quotas to Russia and 4 to Belarus for the Paralympics in Milan–Cortina. The decision raises questions about the limits of sporting legitimization of an aggressor state and about Ukraine’s next steps on the diplomatic stage.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 17, 2026 · 2 min read

IPC allowed Russians and Belarusians to compete under national flags at the 2026 Paralympics — what this means for Ukraine

IPC decision: the facts in one paragraph

According to Sky News, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has allowed six athletes from Russia and four from Belarus to compete under their national flags at the 2026 Paralympics in Milan‑Cortina. The return of the flags follows a ban of more than three years, imposed after Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Quotas by sport

  • Russia — 6 slots: 2 in Paralympic alpine skiing (1 man, 1 woman), 2 in cross‑country skiing (1 man, 1 woman), 2 in Paralympic snowboarding (both male).
  • Belarus — 4 slots: all in cross‑country skiing (1 man, 3 women).

The Russian Paralympic Committee already names three‑time gold medalist in alpine skiing Oleksiy Bugayev among potential participants.

"Athletes will be treated the same as athletes from any other country"

— International Paralympic Committee (IPC)

Why this matters for Ukraine

The IPC decision has not only a sporting but also a political dimension. Restoring national flags for representatives of the aggressor state removes part of the symbolic isolation — and that symbolism will be used in propaganda. At the same time, it creates a precedent for other international organizations that are weighing the balance between sporting inclusivity and accountability for violations of international law.

Experts in international law and sports diplomacy note: if the return of athletes is not accompanied by clear guarantees of transparency and a refusal of state use of sport for political purposes, the decision will carry more symbolic than ethical weight. Sky News and the IPC are authoritative sources, but the reaction of national committees, sponsors and partner states is important.

What Ukraine can do

Ukraine has several tools of response: diplomatic notes, public statements in international forums, work with federations and sponsors, and demands to the IPC for transparent selection criteria and independent oversight. This is not a matter of emotion — it is a matter of a systematic response to a normalization that could weaken the sanctions and moral pressure on the aggressor.

Now the move is up to the partners: will they turn these quotas into an incentive for better control and conditional reintegration, or will the IPC decision become another element of informational legitimization? The answer depends on how quickly and firmly international institutions and states react.

"This is not the end of isolation, but it is a test for the mechanisms that must protect the integrity of sport from political manipulation"

— expert in international sports law (analysts' comment)

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