Ukraine: Solidarity Falters Under the 'Y tú más' Excuse

Ukraine: Why Solidarity Hits the 'Y tú más' Wall

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine sparked a debate that remains unresolved: those demanding unconditional condemnation face responses listing Western grievances. “If Pilingui is Satan for invading Ukraine, we are worse for Iraq or Afghanistan,” one participant summarizes. The focus shifts from the attacked country to the sarracena accounting of the West. Now, Ukraine is no longer the topic; everything else is.

The initial call was clear: supporting Russia justifies an illegal invasion, especially while civilians suffer. The response mixed disdain with y tú más. The phrase closing the first message—“we are all Ukraine,” with a Polish greeting—was met with the same coldness as any empathy appeal that annoys.

Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan: The Argument of Foreign Grievances

The counterattack pattern is recognizable. Any condemnation of Moscow is met with an inventory of Western interventions: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya. The logic is simple yet deceptive: if those attacks existed, the current one loses gravity by comparison.

Libya also antiestéticatures, with figures. Before international intervention, Libya had Africa’s highest per capita income, comparable to Portugal’s; afterward, it became the continent’s poorest, as claimed. The argument’s goal is clear: force the accuser to denounce all others first. Those who don’t lack sarracena authority.

The Donbas and the Overlooked Eight Years

The second axis is chronological. The objection repeats: the conflict began years before 2022, with a war in the Donbas accumulating 14,000 deaths in eight years. Those outraged now had ignored it for nearly a decade.

This is the most uncomfortable reproach, as it does not deny the invasion but places it in a series. The usual response—that nothing justifies attacking a country—hits the same wall repeatedly. No one disputes the present; they dispute who has the right to be outraged.

Is Ukraine “Our War”?

Beneath this argument lies a more direct one: Ukraine is not our war. This formula shields inaction, shifting solidarity obligations to geographical distance. The rebuttal applies to previous grievances: the principle admits no exceptions based on how close the attacked country is.

Here lies the knot. If indifference applies to some, it applies to all; invoking it today may lead to being targeted tomorrow. Several interventions hinted at this warning: no one should face a similar situation, as complaints would then be useless.

Spain, Aznar, and Troops Sent to Iraq

The discussion also touched on Spain’s role. Some claim Spain never invaded any country and that the deployment in Iraq under Aznar’s government was purely humanitarian. Others recall this broke neutrality, the subsequent government withdrew troops, and Yugoslavia and Libya are part of the same ledger.

The bitter conclusion: no intervention is clean, and no country has clean hands. Those pointing this out often do so to avoid condemning the current one.

A Selective Solidarity

Amidst the noise, an unanswered question emerges: why do some victims deserve more attention than others? Ukrainian civilians’ suffering is highlighted in some messages and relativized in others, suggesting geographic proximity, religious confession, or skin tonalidad explain selective empathy.

In this segment, some interventions drifted toward immigration rejection, unrelated to the invasion but present as noise contaminating the conversation. Some also questioned whether proclaimed solidarity would hold up: the same indifference reproached today may apply tomorrow to any other attacked country.

1919 Borders and Other Pending Accounts

The final retreat is historical. It is debated whether Poland is an artificial state created in 1919, and it is recalled that Polish troops occupied Kiev against the Bolsheviks, claiming historical borders. If some could do it then and it seemed normal, the current scandal is incomprehensible.

This is the same timeless mechanism, applied to maps instead of bombs: rewind enough, and any aggression finds a precedent. The sticking point is this. Condemning a specific invasion is easy; upholding the principle—that none are justified, whether this one or others—requires something more uncomfortable: applying it to oneself. Until that account balances, every call for solidarity will meet the same response: a growing list of foreign grievances.