The Ukrainian sports community has voiced strong opposition to the International Olympic Committee’s decision to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete under a neutral flag at the Paris Olympic Games. This stance was conveyed to Efe by a prominent figure in Ukraine’s sports world who has a history in the Olympic arena. Sergiy Stakhovsky, a former professional tennis player who competed in London 2012, criticized the move, saying it undermines the spirit of fair play.
Stakhovsky argued that classifying opponents under a neutral banner while Ukraine endures war is unfair. He noted that the issue stretches beyond sport and touches on fundamental ideas of fair competition. He questioned what fair play means when Ukrainian athletes may be unable to return home for years and must live with the risk and heartbreak caused by ongoing conflict and violence in their country. The view echoes a broad concern about how sport can reflect and influence real-world tensions rather than remaining a separate arena of competition.
Like many Ukrainian athletes, Stakhovsky has joined the defense forces since the invasion began, moving from the sports arena into national service duties. Even as Ukrainian sports infrastructure faces damage and disruption, support for athletes who are serving their country has been limited. The Ukrainian Ministry of Sports reports that hundreds of athletes and coaches have died or been injured, and more than 500 stadiums and training facilities have suffered due to the conflict.
Stakhovsky warned that the issue transcends a single Olympic cycle. It could affect generations of Ukrainian athletes who dream of competing on the world stage and training at home. He called on the international sports community to consider the long-term implications of a decision that, in his view, could embolden aggression.
A decision that appears to empower Russia
Stakhovsky is among many Ukrainian sports representatives who expressed disappointment with the IOC ruling. Deputy Minister of Sports Matvi Bidnykh characterized the decision as irresponsible and stressed that neutrality has no place in the face of what he called the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II, carried out by one nation against another. This stance reflects a broader worry about how sporting symbols can be used to bolster a war effort.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs echoed similar concerns, describing the decision as misguided and warning that the Kremlin could weaponize every Russian and Belarusian athlete in its propaganda. The ministry noted that this dynamic could influence international perceptions and the behavior of competing athletes at the Games.
Officials pointed out that some athletes scheduled to participate are not only connected to sport but also to military structures, and their involvement could be seen as participation in the conflict. The IOC board was urged to consider these realities when evaluating neutrality and its potential consequences for Ukraine.
Ukraine remains undecided about participation in Paris, with a possible boycott on the table. Bidnykh emphasized that the decision would follow consultations with the Ukrainian sports community and national political leaders. The aim is to establish clear criteria for what constitutes a neutral athlete and to ensure the process respects Ukraine’s security and moral concerns.
According to Olga Saladuja, deputy president of the Ukrainian athletics federation, rules should define whether a neutral athlete is tied to Russia’s aggression. He stressed that Ukrainians must have a meaningful role in shaping the assessment process, demanding accountability and transparency in how neutrality is defined and enforced.
Stakhovsky urged Ukrainian athletes to stay resolute, noting that the country must be prepared to respond to any scenario in which competing against neutral Russians and Belarusians arises. The discussion underscored a broader theme of protecting the rights of national athletes to compete while honoring the country’s sovereignty and security concerns, a balance that many in Ukraine argue should not be compromised for the sake of sport.
The situation also included a more recent fencing controversy involving Ukrainian Olympic gold medalist Olha Jarlan. She refused to shake hands with a Russian opponent and was subsequently disqualified from this year’s World Championships. The broader stance expressed by Ukrainian federations calls for careful consideration of every possible scenario and a principled approach to participation in international competition amid complex political pressures.
In this climate, Ukrainian sports leaders are seeking a framework that respects national security, moral concerns, and the integrity of competition. They are asking for clear, transparent criteria that determine neutrality, and for meaningful involvement of Ukrainian voices in how such criteria are defined and applied. This approach aims to preserve the dignity of Ukrainian athletes and the sovereignty of the country while engaging with the global sports community on sensitive issues that intersect politics, war, and sport. The discussions reflect a broader commitment to safeguarding fair play while recognizing the profound realities that Ukrainian athletes face every day.