Secondly, it’s called an analogy used for the purpose of discussion.

It is an inaccurate analogy that serves to justify war.

And since when is advocating for self-defense “pro war”?

It isn't self defense when you've been bombarding civilians and using nazi paramilitaries in the oblasts the Russians want to occupy for years before the war started.

And since when is advocating for self-defense “pro war”? By your logic anything other than absolute pacifism is “pro war”. Is there no scenario in your mind where the use of force may be necessary?

Well, let me say it like this. You're argument is based on the ideal of self defense, and not the actual historical conditions or the outcomes of that war continuing to be prosecuted. What good is an ideal to a dead conscript or civilian? If you want to go around justifying war use less obviously disingenuous rhetoric.