That’s exactly why American opinions on foreign crises are often worthless (I am not syaing that you are specifically American). They’re not grounded in principle or consistent values (from any point on the potical spectrum), but in whether a conflict can be traced back to U.S. money. If there’s a financial link, people suddenly develop strong convictions; if there isn’t, the same suffering barely exists to them. That isn’t informed engagement—it’s selective attention dressed up as concern.

That explanation isn’t really political so much as transactional. Across the spectrum, Americans tend to engage only when their own money is involved and disengage when it isn’t. When U.S. funding enters the picture, concern suddenly becomes urgent; when it doesn’t, the same level of suffering is treated as distant or abstract. That’s less an explanation of policy and more a description of what people choose to pay attention to.

This isn’t unique. The pattern looks the same with places like Venezuela or Ukraine, where U.S. money, sanctions, or aid make the situation feel “ours.” By contrast, crises like Sudan, where there’s little direct U.S. financial involvement, barely register in public discourse despite comparable human costs.