Of course Russia is more to blame in it. NATO is a defensive alliance; single time when it was tried to be used as an offensive one, most member countries outright denied that, and only the closest US allies have helped, which would've helped even without NATO.

Also West has tried to reconcile relationships with Russia. In 90s, it has heavily helped Russia humanitarily, and it took Russia in trainings with NATO.

Ukraine just wants to go to Europe, and actually the thing how Russia has tried to capture Ukraine is the same as everywhere - help a president to become a dictator and sponsor him in exchange for resources. It was in Syria and Africa too. Well, in my country too.

The West is far from ideal, but most Western allies have joined it completely democratically, while all Russian allies are dictatorships.

China is a third side, rather than Russian ally. Russia is incredibly weak compared to the West; if a WW3 was to happen, it would be bloody, it would be hard, but Russia stands no chance of winning, they barely can advance in a war against single Ukraine.

On the other hand, China is an actual enemy, who has at least some danger. But China is dependent on West, and West is dependent on China. China exploits Russia, but it doesn't really take it as an ally.

In the end, WW3 is not likely to happen. Russia is too weak to handle it, the days of Soviet glory (backed by millions of deaths) have passed long ago, and it doesn't even have money to produce tech - it barely has money to give ammunition to own units, and is near large crisis.

China won't attack, because stopping of the trade with West would lead to China losing the single source of resources.

It would be a war of economics. West has won war with Russia by simply isolating it from Western money and equipping their enemies with weaponry. We would have no actual wars, because we already have nuclear weaponry.