Why Is Yaroslava Mahuchikh Opposing the Return of Russian and Belarusian Athletes?

Key Points

• Ukrainian high jumper Yaroslava Mahuchikh has opposed the return of Russian and Belarusian athletes to international sport while Russia’s war against Ukraine continues.
• Mahuchikh made the remarks to Shelter during the unveiling of stars at Star Square in Kyiv on 7 October 2026.
• Shelter journalists Artem Shendetskyi and Yaroslav Romanyuk reported that Mahuchikh said Ukraine was continuing to provide evidence against the return of Russian and Belarusian athletes.
• Mahuchikh stressed that the war and Russian shelling of Ukraine had not ended.
• She questioned arguments that athletes should be regarded simply as individuals with no connection or responsibility to the actions of their states.
• She contrasted her own experience as an athlete with the reality of living under wartime conditions and seeking shelter from attacks.
• According to the Shelter report, Russian and Belarusian athletes remained barred from international track and field competitions at the time of Mahuchikh’s comments.
• World Athletics separately confirmed in July 2026 that its Council had reaffirmed the exclusion of Russian and Belarusian athletes, officials and support personnel from international competition.
• The issue remains part of a wider dispute over how international sport should respond to Russia’s war against Ukraine and whether athletes can compete independently of their national governments.

Mosco News Daily (MND) October 8, 2026 – Ukrainian high-jump champion Yaroslava Mahuchikh has renewed her opposition to the return of Russian and Belarusian athletes to international competitions, arguing that the conditions that led to their exclusion have not ended. Speaking in Kyiv on 7 October during the unveiling of stars at Star Square, Mahuchikh said Ukraine continued to provide evidence supporting the exclusion of athletes from the two countries. She also pointed to the continuing war and Russian attacks on Ukraine, saying Ukrainian athletes were still living with its consequences. Her comments come as international sports organisations continue to consider how existing restrictions should evolve.

What did Yaroslava Mahuchikh say about Russian and Belarusian athletes returning to international sport?

According to Artem Shendetskyi and Yaroslav Romanyuk of Shelter, Mahuchikh argued that Ukraine was continuing to make the case against restoring Russian and Belarusian participation in international sport.

The Ukrainian athlete said her country’s representatives were working to demonstrate why the restrictions should remain in place. She did not present the issue solely as a question of sporting eligibility, but linked it directly to the continuing war against Ukraine.

Shelter reported Mahuchikh as saying that Ukraine was doing everything possible to provide evidence that Russian and Belarusian athletes should not be allowed back into international competitions.

Her position therefore remains aligned with the continuation of restrictions while the war continues. The remarks were made publicly in Kyiv, where Mahuchikh was participating in the Star Square ceremony.

The comments are significant because Mahuchikh is one of Ukraine’s most prominent athletics figures and has repeatedly used her international sporting profile to discuss the consequences of the war.

Why did Mahuchikh say the war remains central to the sporting dispute?

Mahuchikh’s central argument was that the circumstances surrounding the exclusion of Russian and Belarusian athletes have not fundamentally changed.

Shelter reported that she emphasised that Russian attacks against Ukraine were continuing. In her remarks, she said that the shelling had not stopped and that the war was not over.

That point forms the basis of her objection to any return to normal international sporting relations involving Russian and Belarusian athletes.

For Ukrainian competitors, the conflict is not an historical event separated from their sporting careers. Mahuchikh described a situation in which athletes continue to live with wartime risks while representing Ukraine internationally.

Her comments also underline the different circumstances faced by Ukrainian athletes and athletes from countries whose sporting participation is being debated. For Ukrainian competitors, international competition can take place alongside the continuing effects of attacks on their country.

The argument also reflects the position that sporting restrictions should be considered in the context in which they were introduced rather than treated solely as disciplinary measures affecting individual competitors.

What did Mahuchikh say about the argument that athletes are not responsible for the war?

One of the strongest parts of Mahuchikh’s remarks concerned the argument that athletes should be treated separately from political decisions made by their governments.

According to Shelter, she said she had been shocked when people began arguing that athletes were simply individuals and were not responsible for the war.

Mahuchikh contrasted that argument with her own experience. She described herself as an ordinary person who represents her country through sport, while also having to seek shelter and experiencing the loss of people from her nation.

Her comparison was intended to illustrate the difference between describing athletes as detached individuals and recognising the circumstances in which Ukrainian athletes are currently competing.

Rather than claiming that every Russian or Belarusian athlete personally participates in military activity, Mahuchikh focused on the wider relationship between national representation, international sport and the war.

The comments also demonstrate why the question of neutrality remains contentious. International sports organisations have attempted in some circumstances to distinguish individual athletes from national governments by allowing eligible competitors to participate without national symbols or representation.

For Mahuchikh, however, the distinction does not remove the reality that Ukrainian athletes continue to experience the consequences of the conflict while competing internationally.

What is World Athletics’ current position on Russian and Belarusian participation?

The position described by Mahuchikh is consistent with the policy reaffirmed by World Athletics in July 2026.

In an official statement following its 241st Council Meeting, World Athletics said its Council had reaffirmed the decision to exclude Russian and Belarusian athletes, officials and supporting personnel from international competition.

The organisation said the issue was among the principal matters considered at its 1-2 July meeting. It also stated that several options had been considered regarding possible future changes to sanctions originally imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

World Athletics President Sebastian Coe said the Council and its working group had been reviewing the sanctions and identifying a possible conditional pathway towards future participation. However, the July decision maintained the existing exclusion.

The policy has developed over several years. World Athletics initially imposed sanctions in March 2022, excluding Russian and Belarusian athletes, support personnel and officials from its World Athletics Series events.

In March 2023, World Athletics separately confirmed that the Russian Athletics Federation could be reinstated following the completion of requirements connected with its earlier anti-doping suspension. The organisation nevertheless continued to exclude Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials because of the invasion of Ukraine.

The distinction is important. Reinstatement of the Russian federation in relation to its anti-doping status did not automatically result in the restoration of Russian or Belarusian participation in World Athletics competitions.

Why is the position of World Athletics important to Mahuchikh?

Mahuchikh’s comments specifically highlighted the importance of the position taken by the president of the international athletics governing body.

For Ukrainian athletes, a consistent policy from their sport’s international federation can determine whether they are required to compete against athletes from Russia and Belarus.

World Athletics’ policy has therefore provided a different framework from some other international sports.

The organisation’s July 2026 statement also showed that the question is not considered permanently settled. Its Council discussed possible options for the future while maintaining the existing exclusions.

World Athletics’ formal position is consequently both restrictive and subject to further review. The organisation has considered conditions for a possible future return, but its July decision did not remove the sanctions.

That context is relevant to Mahuchikh’s remarks because her public position is being expressed while the athletics governing body itself is maintaining restrictions.

How has the debate over neutrality affected international sport?

The question of neutral participation has become one of the most disputed issues in international sport since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The concept is based on separating an individual athlete’s participation from the official representation of a country. Under such systems, eligible athletes may be permitted to compete without national flags, anthems or other official identifiers.

However, the approach has generated different responses among sports organisations and athletes.

World Athletics took a particularly restrictive position after the invasion. Its March 2022 decision excluded Russian and Belarusian athletes from World Athletics Series events, while also applying measures to officials and supporting personnel.

The organisation’s later reviews have continued to examine whether and under what circumstances restrictions could eventually be changed.

The debate is not limited to athletics. International federations across different sports have adopted different policies concerning Russian and Belarusian competitors. Some have permitted selected athletes to compete under neutral status, while others have retained broader exclusions.

This variation has made the sporting landscape inconsistent for Ukrainian athletes.

Mahuchikh’s comments illustrate the Ukrainian argument that neutrality cannot be considered independently of the continuing war. Her position is that Ukrainian athletes are still directly affected by the conflict and that the conditions surrounding the original restrictions remain relevant.

What does Mahuchikh’s personal experience add to the debate?

Mahuchikh’s position carries particular significance because she has continued her elite sporting career while Ukraine has remained at war.

Her comments connected international competition with the personal experiences of Ukrainian athletes. Rather than discussing the issue exclusively in terms of regulations, she referred to the need to take cover from attacks and the deaths of people in her country.

That perspective helps explain why the issue remains highly sensitive for Ukrainian competitors.

For Mahuchikh, representing Ukraine internationally is not simply a matter of competing under a national flag. Her public statements have repeatedly linked her athletic career with her country’s circumstances.

The distinction is particularly important in high-level athletics, where athletes compete individually but remain closely associated with national teams, federations and international sporting structures.

The debate consequently involves two competing principles: the desire to preserve international sporting competition and the argument that participation cannot be separated from the circumstances created by Russia’s war against Ukraine.

What evidence is Ukraine continuing to present against the return of Russian and Belarusian athletes?

According to Shelter’s report, Mahuchikh said Ukraine was continuing to provide evidence supporting its position.

The report did not specify a new individual piece of evidence presented at the Star Square event. Instead, Mahuchikh referred broadly to Ukraine’s continuing efforts to demonstrate why Russian and Belarusian athletes should not be restored to international competition.

Her comments should therefore be understood as a reaffirmation of an existing Ukrainian position rather than an announcement of a newly introduced evidence package.

World Athletics’ own July statement provides relevant institutional context. It confirmed that the Council was still reviewing sanctions and possible future pathways while keeping the exclusion of Russian and Belarusian athletes in place.

The Ukrainian sporting authorities have also continued to challenge developments concerning Russian representation in the wider Olympic movement. The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine said in July 2026 that it had initiated an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the International Olympic Committee’s decision concerning the temporary reinstatement of the rights of the Russian Olympic Committee.

This indicates that the disagreement extends beyond individual competitions and into the governance structures of international sport.

What is the wider background to the restrictions on Russian and Belarusian athletes?

The restrictions followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

World Athletics announced in March 2022 that all athletes, support personnel and officials from Russia and Belarus would be excluded from its World Athletics Series events for the foreseeable future. The organisation said the measures followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Belarus’s involvement in the conflict.

Before the invasion, Russian athletes had already faced restrictions linked to the country’s long-running anti-doping problems. World Athletics had operated an authorised neutral athlete system through which eligible Russian competitors could participate without representing Russia officially.

That system changed after the invasion. The 2022 sanctions prevented Russian authorised neutral athletes from competing in World Athletics Series events, while Belarusian athletes were also excluded.

In 2023, World Athletics maintained the exclusion despite the reinstatement of the Russian federation following the resolution of its separate anti-doping case.

By 2025, World Athletics’ working group had considered possible future conditions for participation. Its recommendations included maintaining the sanctions unless circumstances changed significantly or peace was established, while also considering possible limited pathways under specific conditions.

The July 2026 Council decision subsequently reaffirmed the exclusion while continuing to consider future options.

Why does the dispute matter to Ukrainian athletes?

For Ukrainian athletes, the dispute affects the conditions under which they compete internationally.

If Russian and Belarusian athletes return to competitions, Ukrainian competitors could once again face them directly in the same events. That possibility has implications not only for competition but also for the personal and political circumstances surrounding those encounters.

Mahuchikh’s comments show that she considers the continuing war a decisive factor.

The issue also concerns the role of athletes as representatives of countries. International sport often presents competition as an arena in which individuals participate under common rules regardless of political differences. The war in Ukraine has challenged that model because national governments, sports federations and athletes have become closely connected to questions of sanctions, representation and neutrality.

For Ukrainian athletes, the consequences are particularly direct because their sporting careers have continued while their country remains under attack.

What could happen next to Russian and Belarusian participation in athletics?

The immediate position in athletics remains that Russian and Belarusian athletes are excluded from World Athletics international competition, according to the governing body’s July 2026 decision.

At the same time, World Athletics has made clear that the question is under continuing review. Its Council has considered possible conditions for a future return, meaning the issue is not permanently closed.

Mahuchikh’s latest remarks add the voice of a leading Ukrainian athlete to that ongoing debate.

Any future change would therefore involve decisions by international sporting authorities rather than by Mahuchikh or individual athletes alone. The governing bodies would need to determine whether existing conditions justified maintaining, modifying or eventually lifting the restrictions.

The continuing war remains a central factor in that assessment.

What is the background to the latest Mahuchikh statement?

The latest comments came on 7 October 2026 during the unveiling of stars at Star Square in Kyiv, where Mahuchikh spoke to Shelter, according to journalists Artem Shendetskyi and Yaroslav Romanyuk.

The statement followed years of debate over Russian and Belarusian participation in international sport.

Mahuchikh has been a prominent Ukrainian voice in that debate, particularly within athletics. Her latest comments do not represent a new World Athletics policy; rather, they reinforce her opposition to any return while the war continues.

World Athletics’ official July 2026 decision provides the institutional context for her position, confirming that the exclusion remained in force while the Council continued to consider possible future arrangements.

The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine has separately pursued legal action concerning the status of the Russian Olympic Committee, showing that disagreements over Russian participation remain active within international sports governance.

What is the prediction for international athletics and Ukrainian athletes?

The immediate effect of Mahuchikh’s comments is likely to be continued attention on the question of whether Russian and Belarusian athletes should return to international athletics while the war remains unresolved.

For Ukrainian athletes, the existing World Athletics policy means that, at present, they continue to compete without Russian and Belarusian athletes in World Athletics Series competitions. If that policy remains unchanged, the competitive environment for Ukrainian athletes will continue under the current restrictions.

If World Athletics eventually changes its position, Ukrainian athletes could face direct competition against eligible Russian and Belarusian competitors. That could create renewed debate over neutral status, national representation and the practical conditions governing encounters between athletes from countries involved in the conflict.

The July 2026 World Athletics decision indicates that any change is likely to depend on developments considered relevant by the governing body rather than on an automatic timetable.

Mahuchikh’s statement therefore reinforces an existing Ukrainian position at a time when international athletics is still reviewing the future of its sanctions. The continuing war, the position of international governing bodies and the response of Ukrainian athletes will remain central to the debate over whether Russian and Belarusian participation can eventually be restored.