That's interesting. "Support for the war" is not an expression that makes a lot of sense to me. Nobody in their right mind wakes up in the morning and tells themselves "yes, I am going to fight in the war just for the sake of it, I love wars", those who fight usually believe that although war is gruesome (which it is), they will be in a better shape if they continue fighting than if they just surrender to the mercy of conqueror.
Do you maybe want your country to abstain from the conflict, save money/resources and let the survival of the fittest take place? What side do you believe it will benefit?
In this context "support for the war" means, in a world where there are several awful conflicts going on at any given time, supporting active intervention in a particular conflict by giving support to one side.
For example, I support the west providing weapons to Ukraine - but I would not support a US return to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, or an intervention in Mexico to wipe out drug cartels, or an invasion of China because of the internment of Uyghurs - even though those are all awful.
Politicians will often go as far as explicitly announcing the criteria by which they'll decide which wars to involve their country in - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine
Support for the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine to wipe it out as a nation would consist of any actions that help Russia win the war they started.
So for example anyone who is keen for Ukraine to be defeated more quickly, by opposing military assistance, are the "war supporters".
Anyone who wants to prevent the warmongers from winning and thus profiting from the war they started - those people are against the war.
No, support for a war is anything that prolongs the war, no matter which side you're arming.
You're essentially saying "it's not support for the war if I'm (perceiving I am) making sure my team wins". I'm not faulting you for that, it's the most common position, but it is support for war.
If you want to define exercise of the right of collective self-defense against aggression as “support for war”, fine, you can have your own private language.
But now explain why that, in the face of actual aggression and genocide, is a bad thing compared to the alternative?
I think you're waving at a sign saying "some things are worth war" and maybe that's true but for most things that's "support for war".
In this case there's a more important point, though, that a broad understanding that war will not be allowed to change the status quo will decrease the number of wars. Building and maintaining that understanding has the expense (sometimes) of making individual wars longer, but when it is (at worst) unclear which of those effects dominates it is unreasonable to label picking one side of that trade as unequivocal "support for war".
He's not talking about the right of the "infringed" collective to self-defense. He's saying, I think, that when you as a 3rd party enter the conflict you are adding flame to the fire.
edit: noting that I'm not trying to be pro/con a third party entering the conflict. I'm just trying to be guiltless action.
Um, no. This is Russia's war. Supporting the war would mean arming Russia.
The west has two options: 1) support genocide by letting Russia systematically invade its neighbors (we've seen this story before and the outcome is not good), or 2) support Ukraine to such a degree that ongoing war is not sustainable and Russia calls off their expansionist plans.
Do you maybe want your country to abstain from the conflict, save money/resources and let the survival of the fittest take place? What side do you believe it will benefit?