EDITOR'S CORNER: It’s Not Our War!

There is a common sentiment expressed in some right-leaning political discussions: “It’s not our war,” or “They aren’t our people.” In some ways, it’s understandable why some individuals feel this way. They may question why their country should spend limited resources on issues and people outside their borders. If a conflict is happening elsewhere, and the people affected are not citizens, it can seem distant or unrelated.

However, events in other parts of the world — whether in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, or elsewhere — often have wider consequences. Global conflicts can influence international stability, migration, trade, security, and the overall wellbeing of interconnected economies. We also have international agreements, humanitarian commitments, and widely shared principles of human rights, ethics, and moral responsibility.

In this blog post, we will take a look at the perspective that assistance should be limited to citizens within one’s own country, whether in the form of foreign aid or social support. We will also explore why many argue that supporting other nations and people in need can be both ethically important and beneficial in a broader, global context.

 IT’S NOT OUR CONFLICT, AND WHY SHOULD WE CONTRIBUTE?

Let’s begin with a frequently heard refrain: “Not our war.” This viewpoint is often expressed in discussions—particularly in parts of Europe—about the conflict in Ukraine. The underlying idea is that because the fighting is happening on Ukrainian territory, other European nations have little or no stake in the outcome. This perspective tends to resurface whenever new support packages for Ukraine are proposed.

The argument typically suggests that the funds allocated to Ukraine—especially those related to military assistance—would be better directed toward domestic needs such as healthcare, education, or social services.

It’s important to recognize, though, that this line of reasoning appears in many debates about international conflicts, not only Ukraine. The challenge with this view is that modern conflicts rarely remain isolated. In an interconnected world, major wars can produce wide-ranging political, economic, and security consequences.

For Europe, the notion of being unaffected is particularly unrealistic. The continent’s stability, economic wellbeing, and broader values are closely connected to the situation in Ukraine. A Russian victory would not only alter borders but could also strengthen authoritarian influence, disrupt global markets, and raise questions about the reliability of international partnerships. In that sense, the long-term costs of disengagement may outweigh the short-term cost of providing assistance.

History also suggests that overlooking acts of aggression does not preserve peace; it often delays challenges until they become more difficult to address.

WELL... NOT OUR PEOPLE THEN!

“Well… not our people then!” This sentiment often appears in public debates when refugees arrive on Europe’s shores or seek asylum at its borders. It reflects a perspective that draws a firm distinction between “us” and “them,” often rooted in concerns about national identity, resources, or cultural change. In some political narratives, refugees are portrayed more as challenges or pressures on society rather than individuals escaping conflict, instability, or hardship. When people are viewed only through statistics or headlines, it becomes easier to overlook their humanity and the difficult circumstances they face.

This dynamic can sometimes lead to tensions between stated values and practical responses. For example, ideas associated with compassion, tradition, or cultural heritage can be tested when offering support requires real effort or investment. Refugees may then be linked to broader social issues — such as housing or employment — even when these challenges have complex and long-standing causes.

History shows that societies are often judged by how they respond to people in need. Approaches based on empathy and responsibility tend to contribute to stability and social cohesion, while exclusion or dismissal can create long-term difficulties. Ultimately, the question becomes not just who “our people” are, but what values we want to uphold when facing global challenges.

THE BALANCE WE NEED

A balanced approach does not require choosing between helping people abroad and supporting citizens at home. Instead, it recognizes that both contribute to a stable, responsible, and healthy society. Addressing domestic needs helps reduce inequality and social tension, while engaging with global challenges supports international stability and reflects positively on countries that take a leadership role. Strong systems in education, healthcare, and social welfare at home make it easier for a society to extend support outward. Likewise, assisting developing nations, refugees, and global aid initiatives can help prevent crises that might otherwise have wider effects — such as migration pressures, economic disruptions, or regional conflicts. In many ways, long-term resilience comes from being able to pursue both priorities thoughtfully.

At the same time, compassion should be paired with practicality. Effective aid requires transparency, accountability, and a focus on long-term solutions rather than dependency.

Soft power also plays an important role in shaping how nations influence the world around them. By contributing to humanitarian efforts, supporting development, and engaging constructively in international cooperation, countries strengthen their global reputation and build trust with partners. This goodwill can translate into diplomatic advantages, stronger alliances, and greater influence in international decision-making. Soft power is not just about image — it helps create an environment where cooperation is easier, conflicts are less likely, and a nation’s values carry weight beyond its borders. Through consistent and principled engagement, countries can advance both their moral commitments and their strategic interests.

Clear communication from governments is also essential. When citizens understand how international assistance can contribute to security, economic stability, and shared prosperity, support for such efforts becomes more sustainable. A balanced approach allows empathy and responsibility to align with sound planning and oversight — helping build a future where supporting others complements, rather than competes with, caring for our own communities.

CONCLUSION 

Ultimately, the instinct to disengage from global challenges reflects a desire for simplicity in an increasingly complex world. Drawing firm lines between “us” and “them” may feel reassuring, but history shows that stepping back from international responsibilities rarely leads to lasting security. Our economic, environmental, and social futures are interconnected, and overlooking that reality can leave societies less prepared for what comes next.

Choosing empathy and responsibility does not weaken a nation; it contributes to long-term stability. Supporting others in difficult times, while continuing to meet domestic needs, is not just an act of goodwill — it is a practical investment in shared resilience. Recognizing that global and local wellbeing reinforce each other helps ensure that when future challenges arise, we are better equipped to face them together.