My guess is that they have, correctly, anticipated that mass casualties of white civilians would play very badly internationally and domestically.

e: I'm downvoted.. for what? It's obvious that the ethnicity of the victim matters for both domestic and international perception, all you need to do is look at a bit of media coverage of reporters bemoaning that this is happening to "blue eyed, blond haired" people or in the "civilized world." There is a different standard for what sort of casualties are considered acceptable.

Just because a talking head or two makes those claims does not mean it is all of the sudden the truth. If Russia was worried about the looks of white civilian casualties, they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. By the way, how many news reporters didn't make the claim that people only care about this because blue eyed/blonde haired people are involved?

Maybe Westerners care more about the Ukrainian situation because Ukraine was by and large a peaceful, lawful country until the war started. Do you think the western response would have been a little different if there was a pre-existing civil war in Ukraine, and Russia stepped in to try to turn the tide for one of the factions?

Also do tell what was the existing civil war in Iraq?

The guardian had an article about some of the comments made by journalist and politicians and there is no other way then to say they are racist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...

If Westerners only care about blonde hair blue eyed people, why did no one care about the Ukrainian war before 2 weeks ago?

Your link has, I think, 4 people who make a claim about why the West cares about the war. Is there a reason you put so much weight on those 4 people, but not on the thousands of other journalists covering the situation who aren't making those claims? Did you know a single one of those people before hearing their coverage of the war?

I assume that Russia doesn't want the same result in a neighbouring country.