I agree, but that is a completely different point than "The western world only cares about this conflict because the victims have blue eyes and blonde hair"

But if you compare the outrage about what was happening in Syria (or Iraq or Afghanistan) to the outrage now, we clearly are at a very different level. It can't be because the Russian are acting so much more ruthlessly now.

If you have a theory to explain a set of facts, pointing to the set of facts as an implicit justification for your theory does not logically follow.

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?

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you seem not to have been paying attention. There was a pre-existing war happening. Russia annexed the Krim in 2014 and there have been skirmishes in the separatists areas ever since.

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...

How was the conflict between Ukraine and Russia playing out before 2 weeks ago? How was the conflict in Syria before US/Russia involvement? Would you call them comparable?

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?