Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Sports

Suspilne refused to broadcast the opening of the 2026 Paralympics — a gesture against legitimizing Russia and Belarus

The public broadcaster will not air the opening ceremony because athletes from Russia and Belarus have been allowed to compete under their national symbols. It is a sign of solidarity with the Ukrainian Paralympic team; the competitions, however, will be broadcast. We analyze why the decision carries weight beyond the sporting arena.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 20, 2026 · 2 min read

Suspilne refused to broadcast the opening of the 2026 Paralympics — a gesture against legitimizing Russia and Belarus

Why this matters

According to UNN citing Suspilne, the Ukrainian public broadcaster has decided not to air the opening ceremony of the XIV Winter Paralympic Games. The decision is tied to the admission of athletes from Russia and Belarus under their national symbols — a step Suspilne calls part of a systematic policy to legitimize these countries on the international stage.

Suspilne's position and Ukraine's reaction

Suspilne has officially and publicly supported the decision of the National Paralympic Team of Ukraine to boycott the opening ceremony. At the same time, the team confirmed its participation in the competitions taking place from March 6 to 15 — and Suspilne will broadcast the competitive events on Suspilne Sport and on local channels.

"This is a systemic policy of legitimizing the presence of Russia and Belarus on the world stage. For Ukrainian society, such a position is unacceptable"

— Suspilne (official statement, quote via UNN)

Context: why this is not only about a broadcast

The decision is about more than an emotional gesture. It is directed at international sporting bodies and public opinion: when an aggressor country returns to the podium under its own symbols, it blurs the lines between sport and political responsibility. Suspilne points to a number of cases that, in its view, confirm this trend — in particular citing an incident involving the disqualification of an athlete as an example of questionable decisions in international competitions.

International response and practical consequences

Suspilne is not alone: Estonian broadcaster ERR has also announced a boycott of events where athletes from Russia and Belarus will compete. Such a chain of decisions creates social proof — not just one country expressing disagreement with the admission policy.

What this means for the viewer

If you planned to watch the opening ceremony — it will not be on Suspilne's air. However, the competitive program will be available on Suspilne Sport and local channels. For many Ukrainians, what matters more than the ceremony itself is the principle: whether the presence of the aggressor is being legitimized in the public sphere of sport.

Summary

This decision is more than an emotional gesture. It raises questions for international federations and broadcasters: is the global sporting community willing to ignore the political consequences of its decisions? The next move is now up to those who set the rules and give a voice on international stages.

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