I don't have a pat response here, just a series of potentially conflicting ideas:

• participants in a riot each have individual goals, no one's vetting at the door
• police/state actors have a vested interest in making the protest look bad or dangerous to the middle class
• looting big box stores is fully moral, if employees aren't being harmed

I have no context why the French protesters didn't stop some things and Ukrainian protesters did. I could baselessly speculate but regardless, the issues being protested are genuine and the media is going to amplify any property damage, or invent some if none is available otherwise. Recall how CHAZ/CHOP coverage looked in US media.

I believe you didn't intend this meaning but please take a momemt to reflect why people get mad at the argument in the way you stated it:

The problem is you attributed the looting and violence to ,,people not well integrated". Which translates to ,,those people cause problems because they're (muslim, arab etc.) migrants", which indeed is a xenophobic/racisg argument as it attributes the unvavorable behavior to the ethnicity of the subjects. Reality is people loot and cause trouble because they're marginalized and most of all because they're poor. If you factor in those two aspects negative things like crime rates are no longer significantly different if you, for example, compare poor, marginalized French with and without migrational background.

I apologize. Easy to get wound up lately. i edited my comment