Sorry for my ID at the beginning of the question as I simply did not notice it until it was too late to amend it. Still, it has some right to be there, given the horrific nature of this war.

Worth pointing out, all the actors mentioned above see themselves as engaged in such a war.

From certain points of view, it can be understood that way. From Russia's point of view, it can be understood that way.

But India also maintains good relations with the West. The relationship between the United States and India is one of the most strategic and important relations of the 21st century. Since 2014, strategic cooperation between the two nations has deepened, and India has been declared the United States' "principal defense partner."

India and France share long-standing cultural, commercial and economic ties. The strategic partnership between India and France, signed in 1998, has gained significant momentum over time and has now evolved into an even closer multilateral relationship, encompassing various areas of cooperation. ...

For China, the West is a great rival, but at the same time the EU and the US are important trading partners for Beijing.

Ladislav

Modi is very much against the Western hegemony (sic) and has given support to Putin so I find it difficult to put India alongside the West.

The war in Ukraine is indeed a Proxy-war, it does not matter what President Putin said about it. The behavior/actions of NATO countries since the end of the Cold War, was clearly calculated by the West/US to produce exactly a war with Russia - albeit "indirect war" in other words "a proxy war." NATO became an instrument to drive this policy,,,one that some top advisors in the USA referred to it as,,,"giving Russia its own Vietnam" and Ukraine volunteered in 2014 to be a willing Proxy in this plan.

As long ago as early 2000s, American diplomats made it clear that expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia would be a clear redline for RUSSIA, thus the USA/NATO made public commitments, "NATO shall not expand an inch" to the East, very responsible decision, since even the USA, nor Britain, France would NOT tolerate the security implications that would come with such a move. However, a few years later,,, AND against their own commitment/promises, "to give Russia its own Vietnam" NATO started expanding eastwards. There have since been a few phases of this expansion from Berlin all the way to the Russian border,, at each stage, Russia expressed apprehension - "rising feeling of insecurity" but was ignored by the West, as the West was hell bound to bring war to the Russian doorstep.

In 2014, the West supported a 'coup de tat' in Kiev,,,precisely to have a pliable government in Ukraine, one that will be willing to play proxy in a war against Russia. Remember, it was Kiev that started oppression and killings of Russian speaking regions -from 2014 until 2022 when Russia intervened. Where was the West to protect civilian populations in Eastern Ukraine??? Nowhere. If anything, the West supported the military campaigns against these civilians.

Any serious International Relations scholar/reader will know that it is important to understand that certain developments will almost always result in undesirable outcomes. Acting in ways that threaten security of one state, will always solicit reciprocal action that meant neutralize the perceived threat - "SECURITY DILEMMA/Indivisibility of Security." Policy experts in the West know/knew that expanding NATO to the border of Russia would render Russia insecure and was going to compel Russia to act drastically, even if that meant going to war. War was an outcome the West anticipated and one they achieved through a proxy taking advantage of very weak (my view) feeble minded Ukrainian leadership.