Not Cowbee, but I want to push back on some more of your what you are trying to imply.

Why do you believe that is an excuse for war

The rest of the world has every right to defend itself against NATO, including when NATO tries to put troops and weapons near highly populated non-NATO-controlled areas, especially when NATO conducts terror attacks.

but Russian interference in the Ukrainian state (to the point that their president was a Russian puppet), was acceptable?

Firstly, what is your evidence for this Russian interference to the point that the president was a Russian puppet?
Secondly, this is at the very least less bad than NATO's interference and subjugation of Ukraine at least on the basis of NATO being by far the most evil polity in the world, complete with conduction of at least one current genocide. (EDIT: And you are yet to present an alternative course of action for Russia, despite being repeatedly prompted to, and despite the fact that your claims have no basis if there wasn't any other serious option for Russia.)

Going to note that you didn't dispute anything of what I brought up (and you did not even acknowledge the fact that you have been supporting Ukraine invading Iraq), but just decided to make a personal attack against me. This is despite you being shown to not have a good understanding of history and of current events that you speak confidently about.

Tankies gonna tank.

People who literally support their tanks crushing independence of countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas sure do love to say that to people who oppose colonialism and nazis, as if that is somehow bad. All while not being able to refute any of the 'tankies' claims. The word 'tankie' just means 'a person who is correct'.

Going to briefly elaborate on the USSR, though: off the top of my head, the USSR not only successfully resisted the Lebensraum and put an end to the Holocaust, it also aided the liberation movements in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, etc., and the USSR improved lives domestically with things like guaranteed housing, guaranteed access to education and elimination of illiteracy, guaranteed access to healthcare, world's first achievements in the sort of women's rights that we take for granted today, 60% increase to life expectancy (relative to the pre-WW1 statistics) in the first 30 years of its existence, elimination of famines that were common in the Russian Empire, and so on.

You don't really have an argument for why the USSR was supposedly bad, and it's time to admit that to yourself.

Going to note right away that you are yet to explain what Russia should have done according to you.

Also, going to again note the fact that you are weirdly concerned for the success of a literal nazi government that has banned opposition and does not hold elections (while talking about how democratic the relevant astroturfed movement was) and which wants to plunder the rest of the world together with the rest of NATO, than you are for the right of the rest of the world to defend itself against said plundering. You have even implied that Syria should not have defended itself against you, to boot.

There needs to be evidence of NATO aggression against Russia for me to actually try to defend it

NATO did a coup in Ukraine (not sure how you are going to deny this, as there is already evidence of the US picking and choosing who will get what position in the post-coup government, as well as bragging about spending billions on subjugating Ukraine), then the puppet regime in Ukraine attempted to bring NATO troops and weapons near the border with Russia's most populated areas.
When the most prolific invader in the world does that, that is an obvious act of aggression, especially when they also engage in terror attacks.

There is also the fact that NATO is, as I keep mentioning, the most prolific invader in the world that is engaging in at least one high-profile genocide and must be fought against (unless you also think that Germany and the rest of the Axis should have been allowed to complete the Holocaust and the Lebensraum and to not answer for their other acts of colonialism).

So you believe western volunteers are mercenaries?

You can call the SS auxiliary troops whatever you want.

What would you call Russian prison battalions, kidnapped indian students and north Korean regulars?

Not sure how the former are relevant, not sure why the latter are an issue, considering that they are not mercenaries and that they are/were on the right side of this conflict.
Source your claim about the 'kidnapped Indian students' somehow being involved.

Do you know how tiny 100km² is in comparison to the entire of Ukraine?

Hahaha.
So, let's get this straight - you think that states engage in warfare until they lose all territory?
This argument is especially silly, considering that Kursk oblast is much smaller than 100 km^2, and is a much, much smaller part of Russia than 100 km^2 area is a part of Ukraine. And yet, you brought up Kursk as some sort of an argument for Russia losing.

The reality of the war is a sparsely guarded Frontline across hundred of kms of empty land that frequently changes hands.

Sure, if by 'frequently changes hands' you mean 'Ukraine is losing this territory and fails to retake it'.

Ukraine also still holds land in Kursk according to current osint.

5 m^2 of land? Haha.

When do you think Ukraine invaded Iraq?

In the 2000s. The Ukrainian troops were officially congratulated by the US.

You mean the Soviet union controlled my Moscow?

Haha.
At least study a little bit about this topic.
You probably also think that the most successful anti-colonial force that massively improved people's lives not only domestically but also abroad by aiding liberation movements (in their fight against you) was somehow bad.

I would frankly prefer some sort of a USSR spam over what the government is actually doing.

I think NATO sucks, but I also think Russia does. The only thing I care about in this situation is Ukrainian autonomy.

Notably, you seem fine with Ukraine invading Iraq and Syria.
Also notably, you do not seem to care about Russia's autonomy, Syria's autonomy, Iraq's autonomy, etc.

If you believe Ukraine has a right to self defense and self determination then we're in agreement.

Do Iraq, Iran, Russia, Syria (before your invasion), Palestine, Libya (before your invasion), Afghanistan, non-occupied Korea, etc. have a right to self-defense and self-determination?

Right away going to note that you are yet to explain what Russia should have done about NATO's aggression.

Russia has completely failed it's "special military operation" in Ukraine

Not sure how this would be relevant even if it wasn't fiction.

NATO countries are supplying a trickle of arms to Ukraine, but without a single NATO boot on the ground

Again, you should stop making claims without bothering to double-check them. You are woefully underequipped to make assumptions here.
Non-Ukrainian NATO troops have been involved, both in the form of mercenaries and de jure NATO military personnel, with some of the weapons that Ukraine has been using requiring the participation of NATO troops.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks

Not sure why you think that this is in any way relevant, but Russia has literally been winning more and more ground, with a very recent takeover of estimated more than 100 km^2 within 24 hours.

having even lost actual Russian territory to Ukrainian counter offensives

Your sources are outdated. Kursk has been liberated.
Either way, this shows that Russia's concerns about NATO are not unfounded, so you are now just contradicting your earlier implied claims that Russia should have just ignored NATO's activities.

Clearly Russia would not stand a chance if NATO decided to invade them

This is basically an original German nazi talking point about Slavs being subhuman and standing no chance against Germany for some reason.

Either way, you are now claiming that Russia is right to be concerned about NATO's aggression, and that every polity that tries to join NATO should be fought against like the enemies of humanity that they are.

So that begs the question, if you believe NATO wants to invade Russia, and it's clear Russia couldn't stop them, why haven't they?

Again, you are quite literally working off of wrong assumptions that nobody who has been following the conflict holds.

Right. I agree that NATO tacitly supports US imperialism

Not 'tacitly', and not just the US' imperialism.
You are blatantly trying to absolve the glorified USian provinces of imperialism and colonialism by downplaying their complicity and willingness in subjecting the world to these horrors.

but you're also conflating the actions of the US with NATO as a whole.

You are, again, trying to downplay the actions of the US' glorified provinces that is the rest of NATO, and distance them from their own actions.

Turkey did not invade Afghanistan for example.

Turkey did invade Afghanistan. And other places, together with the rest of NATO.

Also the idea that NATO caused the Bosnian Genocide is laughable.

Given that you keep being demonstrated to be wrong about everything, you should stop laughing about things that people who are consistently correct tell you.

NATO did not attack Russia.

The most prolific invader in the world that is engaging in at least one obvious and high-profile genocide doing a coup in a country that neighbours another country's most populated areas and then attempting to bring weapons and personnel to the relevant border is, in fact, an act of aggression, and the rest of the world has every right to defend itself against NATO.

Russia invaded Ukraine.

As a response to NATO's aggression.

Notably, you are yet to explain what Russia should have done, despite you being prompted to.

Do Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves from Russian imperial aggression?

Did Germans have a right to defend themselves from the Allies' 'imperial aggression' in 1930-1940s?
Also, going to note that you are completely fine with terror attacks conducted by your empire, including against the Russian population which you deny any right to defend itself against you.
The rest of the world has a right to defend itself against NATO. The population of the most prolific invader in the world that is currently engaging in at least one high-profile genocide is not the priority in this situation (unless, again, you think that the rest of the world should roll over for you).

Are they ordered by how much they violate human rights, with the most prolific violators scoring the most?

EDIT: People should stop claiming that the gang of states that are currently engaging in at least one genocide, keep invading everywhere, doing coups is a 'defensive alliance'.

You mean when the largest european democratic movement in decades ousted a Russian puppet

This is silly.
That's quite a fantasy you have concocted there.

Firstly, just describing any pro-NATO movement, i.e. a movement that supports literal colonialism, as 'democratic' is extremely silly. Especially when such movements are known to be created by NATO and include literal politicians and open nazis. Going to also note that you are fine with the perpetual dictator Zelenskiy.
Secondly, everybody is familiar with things like the leaked correspondence between USian representatives in Ukraine picking who gets to be in what position in the new government weeks before the completion of the coup, as well as them bragging about how much money they spent on subjugating Ukraine.
Thirdly, you can't even name what was supposedly so bad about Yanukovich. It's pretty obvious that his sin - in your eyes - was that he did not sell Ukraine off to NATO.

who refused to pass a bill ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament?

Oh no. An elected president vetoed a bill that was being protested against by the same people that you love being in power.
Mind sharing why an elected president vetoing a bill justifies NATO completing yet another coup? Sounds like your standards are very much not applied uniformly.

This never happened.

This is, again, silly.
Do you want to tell us that Ukraine was not trying to join NATO in the years 2014-2022, and that no relevant claims were made by NATO?

NATO is a defensive alliance.

This is also very very silly.
Nobody can seriously claim that invasions of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine (complete with a very obvious genocide), Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, etc. - all done by NATO - were 'defensive'.
The only 'defensive' thing about NATO is how it protects its members from facing justice for centuries of ongoing colonialism, including for settler-colonial and other genocides.

The closest it's ever gotten to starting a war was Afghanistan and not every member participated.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not a single de jure member of NATO that did not participate. And those were very obviously wars started by NATO, with NATO invading those countries.
There is also the fact that not every glorified USian province sending troops neither makes those non-NATO actions, nor negates other forms of complicity in the activities.

And before you wind up the next "gotcha", there are lots of dog shit imperialist countries in NATO, but we're discussing the organization itself here.

If every member of this organisation is a 'dog-shit imperialist state' - and they all are, - then we can conclude that there is no defense that can be levied for the organisation itself that is the most prolific invader in the world and that is currently engaging in at least one high-profile genocide.

Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Afghanistan?

This is also silly.
Russia did not invade Afghanistan and Syria. Russia literally helped Syria against your invasion forces and DAESH (which has since become yet another de facto part of NATO, if it ever wasn't).
Russia fought against the separatist in Chechnya with NATO's support. The part of the Russian government that supported the separation of Chechnya were shelled with tanks by pro-NATO forces.
Georgia was literally the one that attacked the Ossetian separatists. This is doubly silly, considering that you support Chechen separatists.

And also this is your moral foundation? It doesn't matter what crimes Russia is committing so long as they never commit more crimes than the US?

Again, the rest of the world has every right to defend itself from NATO. Look at what you did to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine. On what grounds should the rest of the world just roll over for you?

Russia is literally conducting an imperialist invasion of Ukraine right now...

The most prolific invader in the world - NATO - did a coup in Ukraine, tried to bring weapons and personnel to Russia's most important border near Russia's most populated parts, and has been conducting terror attacks against the Russian population.
The rest of the world has every right to defend against NATO, so you either have a good explanation for what else Russia could have done in this regard, or your criticism of Russia is not serious.

Just because Russia "opposes" the west doesn't make it any better than them.

The fact that Russia hasn't done anything nearly as bad as things like the invasion of Iraq - let alone the genocide of Palestine - does make Russia better.