Do you really think that giving in to invaders demands will bring peace? Just like it did in 2014, like it did in 2008, and like it did in 1938?
And yes, before you bring up the US, the same applies there. We should have been more firmly against Bush's wars. Because this stuff does transfers - letting one invader invade without punishment will only encourage everyone else (including the US) to do the same. Do you really want to send a message to the US, to France, to China, to Israel, that they can invade other countries without repercussions? Because if you advocate for peace with Russia, that is exactly what you're doing.
Yes. Precedent matters, not in the legal sense, but in the sense of what a possible invader expects to happen. Capital will pursue its interests, but only by fighting back do we show that it's in their interest to not invade random countries.
Now that's the most loaded question I've seen in a while. It's not the "west" being supported here, it's Ukraine. You may be confused as to which way the money flows, and who requested it.
Second, you are similarly confused about how the west is expanding (by which you probably mean NATO). The US did not invade and conquer Poland, instead Poland was begging to join. Same with Turkey. Same with the Baltic countries, and now Sweden and Finland. Do you know why they all wanted to join?
Oh, and finally when did the west pillage Russia? And more importantly, how did they pillage Russia? If you believe that the US was able to control Russia so well in the 1990s, how do you know Putin is not their puppet now?