Anti-war might not even be entirely the right word, but it's possible that a more "anti-imperialist" sentiment is growing. Sort of along the lines of the old "world police" critique. A lot of these people are probably both sympathetic to Ukraine, but also not in favor of some countries extending their military and financial influence far beyond their borders.

I think Hillary Clinton said in an interview, something along the lines that Russia should be prepared for the West to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan. Seems like a pretty harsh way to view the people that are supposed to be supported.

That isn't "anti-imperialism", that's just good old fashioned isolationism.

True "anti-imperialism" seems like it would imply some duty to stop imperialism done by non US actors.

That's where you get into a muddy mess of where to draw the line between "imperialism," and something else. There are different takes on what constitutes imperialism, and whether one State trying to push back on what it perceives as creeping imperialism is legitimate.

The argument a lot of people are making, not just Russia or Russians, is that overextension of NATO influence was a major cause for the conflict. This might be something like if the Soviet Union had refused to deescalate military support to Cuba during the missile crisis and the US went ahead with military action there.

That's not to say that I personally would agree with US intervention in Cuba, or Russia in Ukraine, just trying to understand the logic that's being played by here.

The “nukes in Cuba” in this situation are democracy, free speech, LGBT rights and other Western principles. Yes, they are a threat to Putin and his system.

None of which are selling points for the Ukrainian government

Hillary Clinton, like other neocons, thinks it would be great if Ukraine turned into another Afghanistan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLANOdsNhPg