ROFL, not the liberal Molotov Ribbentrop pact, I expected better from an anarchist NGL. Again portraying the absolute belief of US state propaganda to the same level that libs do, and a complete lack of understanding of the material and historical conditions.

There is well documented evidence that the USSR sought after mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland early in the 30s, way before the Nazis started invading other countries, and facing a decade of rejection because they expected Nazis to firstly invade the communists, which was desired. In 1939 the USSR offered to send ONE MILLION soldiers together with artillery, tanks and aviation to France on exchange for a mutual defense agreement. The diplomats from France and England were both given orders (leaked wires prove this) to not accept any agreement, and only to pretend to be interested but delay the negotiations as much as possible. The USSR also offered, previous to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, to start an offensive against the Nazis as an alternative to the Munich agreements, if Poland England and France joined in the offensive, which they of course refused because, again, they wanted communism destroyed more than Nazism. The USSR in 1939 had had a total of 10 years of industrialisation to get out of being a feudal backwater country and have the industrial drive to fight threats like Nazism (Stalin famously predicted in the late 1920s that they had 10 years to make up the difference in industrialisation or they would be wiped out of the map). Every single year was crucial in the rapid development of the USSR industrial base, against the industrially superior Nazi Germany which had been industrialising for 100 years at that point. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the only possible chance of survival for the USSR, it wouldn't be able to stop the advances of fascism by 1939 singlehandedly, and the "partition of Poland", while obviously not desirable, was the only option other than all-out war against Nazism without the intervention of France and England, or directly allowing the Nazis to take the entirety of Poland and increase the scope of the genocide. Again you show that your knowledge of the historical and material conditions isn't adequate, and that you're willing to replicate Josep Borrell levels of state propaganda. What a shame to be honest, I didn't expect even this low from an anarchist.

their imperialism in Afganistan

Wow, again with the US state propaganda! You're quite literally indistinguishable from a lib in your understanding of history. Tell me. What should the USSR have done when the US started to unilaterally arm and train militias of local tribal radical theocrats? "Sorry guys, sending troops to fight against a primitive version of fascism is wrong, we're communist after all, so much as picking up a rifle and showing any resistance to American imperialism would make us just as bad as them".

US state propaganda was all too happy to call USSR socialist/communist

Dumbest take I've ever seen. The US called the USSR communist firstly because it was, and secondly because it's a way to prime people who have been radicalised against Russians in the US to be blindly critical of socialism (as you are proving to be).

Really, mate, I wasn't expecting this lib-level analysis of the international policy of the USSR, but I should have known better. Point by point replicating the anticommunist propaganda... Sad shit ngl

too naive in allying with red fash

I'm sure Republican Spain and the anarchists (who refused to seize power and maintained the local bourgeoisie) would have resisted fascism so well without the guns, ammunitions, tanks, planes and troops from the USSR, lmao.