> “Amazing mainstream Western media gives glowing coverage of people resisting invasion by making molotov cocktails,” one social media user remarked. “If they were brown people in Yemen or Palestine doing the same they would be labeled terrorists deserving US-Israeli or US-Saudi drone bombing.”

Is skin color really the differentiator here? Many in US media called the mostly white Jan. 6th Capitol rioters terrorists. On the other hand, the US provided aid and training to the Arab Mujahideen fighters in their conflict against the largely white Soviets.

What's really going on in this article is cherry-picking, to make it seem like there is something more sinister going on than merely caring more about conflicts that are closer to one's home - a tendency that is not exclusively Western.

Edit: [the 2nd Congo War] 5.4 million dead. Deadliest conflict since WW2. Half the people with support flags in their bio couldn’t name you the capital let alone the bordering countries. Europeans look after their own. The rest of us can, quite literally, drown.

It's interesting to see when a global perspective is used (which conflicts one should care about) vs. when it becomes strictly Eurocentric (which countries should help or accept refugees). Perhaps if the EU were demanding that Algeria (or China, or India, or Brazil, or...) accept Ukrainian refugees, they might have a point.

(I say 'might', because, as is usually the case in articles like these, they dutifully pretend Europe/the West has accepted zero non-white immigrants or refugees so far)