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.
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.
But now explain why that, in the face of actual aggression and genocide, is a bad thing compared to the alternative?
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".
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.
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
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?