One is a military aliance with the Express Purpos of destroying the ~~USSR~~ Russia at any cost, that has both denied the USSR & Russia Entry

How does a defensive pact = the express purpose of destroying the USSR/Russia?

If it indeed was made expressly to destroy the USSR, why would the USSR attempt to join it? You are either misrepresenting the inherent purpose of NATO, or you are claiming the USSR wanted to invade the USSR in the 50s.

The same cognitive dissonance is apparent in your claim about Russia. If NATO was built to destroy the USSR and Russia "at any cost", why did NATO create the Nato-Russia Council, why did the Russians join it? Why were we doing joint military exercises in the early 00s? None of these activities are ones you would participate in with your mortal enemy......

NATO has vastly outlived its usefulness and purpous, and is going to be on its way our with our without trump, The United States Intrests no longer lie with Europe as heavily.

I feel this is more wishfull thinking than anything a kin to a factual statement.

The second reason for the war, and the stated one was the ongoing genocide of the Russian Speaking population in the dunbas region (now a part of Russia), and the flagrent violation of the Minsk agreements, that Ukraine had been carrying out sense 2014.

You mean the one that has never been substantiated?

"Following the invasion, Ukraine brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to challenge Russia's accusation. During the proceedings of Ukraine v. Russian Federation, the ICJ said it had found no evidence of genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars also rejected Russia's accusation.[2] Further reports by 30 legal and genocide scholars warned that Russia's accusations are part of the "accusation in a mirror" technique, ultimately revealing the Russian incitement to commit genocide against Ukrainians.[3]"

Russia has effectivly won the war, the onlything happening now is the US is telling their puppet of Ukraine to not sign the peace treaty, or any cese fire agreements, while draining the wests arsonals, Privitizing Ukraine at breakneck pase, and causing senseless loss of life in Ukraine.

They've lost nearly half a million people and generations of weapon stockpiles, and have wrecked any kind of economic future outside a war time economy. In the meanwhile NATO has expanded even further, and is closer to Moscow than ever before. Can they really call that a win?

I kind of think it's hilarious that you would blame the West for the deaths of Ukrainians, but not Russia? Are you claiming Ukrainians lack the agency to decide wether they want to defend their country? Or are you claiming the Russians lack the ability to keep their hands to themselves?

From the first week the Russian Federation offered a Peace Treaty, and about twice a month after that either a peace treaty or cese fire,to end the killing

"Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion.[37] This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory""

Also last I remember, the aleged 2020 and 2016 election interfearence, came up as inconclusive

No, there was plenty of evidence that Russia made efforts to interfere in the election in the fovour of the trump administration. The inconclusive part was how involved the trump campaign was.

Look what I am trying to say is that this fraiming and spinn is disingenuous

Based on your spin and framing of other current events, I think this claim is disingenuous and hypocritical.

understand, and could belive that it is in Russia's best intrest for Trump to be elected president, however I feel as though using this as evidence is more of a hinderance to that argument than a bost.

I didn't appeal to it as evidence, I appealed to the surrounding context which highly suggest Vladimir Putin is lying through his teeth.

this argument of "Putin said X so he means Y" is not as effective as you think it is.

Can you quote where I made that claim?

What I'm trying to say is that global politics is a complex landscape, and the false dichotomy of NATO bad = Russia good is foolish. I've heard the myopic arguments, that anyone fighting the hegemony is morally valid. That Russian attempts of expansion isn't imperialism or colonialism, despite Russia being a western capitalist nation run by a powerful oligarchy growing rich by stealing from "state owned" resources.... Nope they're just defending themselves by attacking their neighbor.