Is this true?

Miroslav Volf writes:
"If the claim that Christ 'died for the ungodly' (Romans 5:6) is 'the New Testament's fundamental affirmation', as Jon Sobrino rightly states in Jesus the Liberator (Sobrino 1993,231), then the theme of solidarity, though indispensable and rightly rehabilitated from neglect by Moltmann and others, must be a sub-theme of the overarching theme of self giving love. Especially when solidarity refers to 'struggling on the side of', rather than simply to 'suffering together with', solidarity may not be severed from self-donation.
All sufferers can find comfort in the solidarity of the Crucified; but only those who struggle against evil by following the example of the Crucified will discover him at their side.
To claim the comfort of the Crucified while rejecting his way is to advocate not only cheap grace but a deceitful ideology" Exclusion and Embrace


When I first read this, I wasn't sure if it was semantics playing with me or whether he was really on to something. What is the difference between 'on the side of' and struggling with'? Don't both speak to identification? I think what Volf is differentiating (using an oversimplified example) is the difference between the dictionary meaning pointing to the mental assent side of voicing and experiencing unity in solidarity by signing a petition against something, versus the on the ground protest march type of Solidarity. If I read him correctly, then the first italicised section becomes clearer.
The context of this clip is a discussion on how the cross plays into the self in relation to the 'other'. What Volf is effectively saying here especially in the last paragraph, is that to sign the petition on behalf of our enemy is only part of the journey Christ wants us to embark on in reconciliation. To follow his 'way' means to go out on the street with them? How does this play into the whole realm of giving? Is there some sense of exchange?