Ukrainian Paralympic officials say they will stay away from the opening ceremony of the Milano–Cortina Paralympic Winter Games in Verona on March 6 — while their athletes still plan to compete. The decision follows a contested move by the International Paralympic Committee to award 10 bipartite invitation slots to competitors from Russia and Belarus and to allow those athletes to parade under their national colours. That combination of participation and visible national symbolism has prompted formal objections in Kyiv and a public, symbolic protest: Ukrainian delegation leaders and many government representatives will not attend the ceremony and have asked that the Ukrainian flag be omitted from the parade.
What the records show
– The IPC issued 10 bipartite invitations to Russia and Belarus. Russia’s allotment covers two para-alpine, two cross-country and two snowboard places; Belarus received four cross-country slots. These were classified by the IPC as bipartite invitations rather than places earned through the standard qualification lists circulated earlier.
– Internal memos, email exchanges and a short cover note circulated to national paralympic committees document the allocations and the panel certification. Those materials do not include an extended public rationale explaining why these particular slots — or these particular athletes — were chosen.
– Ukrainian officials say they raised concerns through both sporting and diplomatic channels after receiving the IPC notice. When clarification did not change the decision, they formalised a boycott of non-sporting ceremonies while confirming that athletes would continue to train and compete.
How the situation unfolded
The sequence is straightforward: the IPC’s bipartite panel finalised the invitations and notified national committees. Ukraine queried the decision, seeking further explanation and urging reconsideration. The IPC’s internal review group considered classifications, field size and welfare among other criteria, but did not publish a detailed justification when the notice went out. With little time to respond before public announcements, Ukrainian authorities escalated to a formal protest and announced that delegation leaders would skip the opening ceremony — a tactical move designed to separate athletic competition from what Kyiv views as a political signal.
Key actors
– International Paralympic Committee: responsible for allocating slots, setting parade and equipment rules, and handling appeals.
– Ukrainian National Paralympic Committee and the Ukrainian government: lodged protests, coordinated the ceremonial boycott and requested that the Ukrainian flag not be displayed at the opening.
– Russian and Belarusian paralympic authorities: received and accepted the bipartite invitations and have indicated an intention to appear with national insignia.
– Organising committees, broadcasters, legal advisers and athlete representatives: involved in logistical, legal and reputational assessments behind the scenes.
Points of contention beyond slots
The dispute has several strands. One is procedural: some national committees have questioned the transparency of how bipartite invitations were allocated and whether the process was consistent with published qualification principles. Internal emails show other committees asked for briefings after seeing the allocations.
Another thread concerns symbolism and equipment rules. Teams prepared commemorative insignia to honour recent battlefield losses; IPC equipment officers flagged some items as possible political messaging and applied neutrality rules. That enforcement, and the disciplinary steps that followed, prompted public criticism from Ukrainian athletes and managers — skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych, for example, publicly described certain IPC decisions as offensive — and fed the broader debate about how far sporting neutrality can be stretched in wartime.
Operational effects on the ground in Verona
Accreditation logs and on-site photos document the absence of several Ukrainian officials from the opening ceremony, while athletes remained present and continued scheduled preparations. Event organisers scrambled to adjust seating, accreditation and media arrangements at short notice. Local organisers and the IPC held briefings to assess security, diplomatic and logistical implications; coaches kept training programs on track to minimise disruption to competition schedules.
Wider implications
There are immediate practical consequences — extra administrative work for organisers, awkward seating charts and heightened media attention focused on symbolic acts rather than sport. There are also reputational and governance questions for the IPC: allowing national insignia in these circumstances risks politicising ceremonies widely seen as apolitical, and could set a precedent on how similar situations are handled in future conflicts. National committees that feel procedures were unclear may pursue appeals or request more transparent documentation; if explanations are not forthcoming, the dispute could escalate into arbitration or prompt calls for reform of bipartite allocation rules.
What happens next
– Kyiv has formally requested that the Ukrainian flag not be displayed at the March 6 opening. Officials expect further exchanges with the IPC in the coming days.
– The IPC could respond by releasing an explanatory note, publishing the allocation panel’s rationale, amending ceremonial guidance, or otherwise engaging in mediation with protesting committees.
– National paralympic committees unhappy with the response may pursue internal appeals or other governance remedies. Observers will watch for emergency meetings, follow-up rulings on equipment and expression rules, and any broader policy changes that could emerge after the Games.
Ongoing reporting
Reviewable materials in the public record include the IPC’s allocation notices, Ukraine’s formal protest letters and internal IPC memos summarising the bipartite process. Those documents — together with correspondence between national committees, minutes from preparatory meetings and statements from athletes and officials — shape a dispute that feels part procedural, part symbolic. As exchanges continue and the Games approach, further documents and official responses are likely to clarify whether this episode will remain a limited ceremonial protest or evolve into a lasting test of how international sport navigates geopolitical crisis.