Once you read enough about post-WWII Soviet military doctrine, you’ll realize that the Cold War is the reason the Hot War didn’t happen. Not like Vietnam and so on, but real hot.
Why? Because that doctrine was quite simple. Soviet ground forces after its adoption sucked donkey balls because they were intended to mop up what remains after nuking Europe. BMP-1 sucked donkey balls because it wasn’t an armored transport, it was a protected transport. To rapidly cross rivers and swamps on irradiated terrain, while kinda protecting people inside from radiation, not from bullets even. The whole reason USSR’s ground forces after WWII had a reduced peacetime component, but huge mobilization plans and mass warfare approaches, is that they were expected to die from radiation a lot, so why bank on quality.
EDIT: And contrary to the common perception, even in WWII human waves were not the tactic of choice of USSR’s military. So this was a conscious change, an enormous reform. I can say I can’t avoid the feeling of huge respect for people who would really tackle the numbers and warfare theory to produce such a plan to nuke half the world and possibly emerge as a victor. However, the reforms after that plan made already corrupt Soviet bureaucracy even more corrupt, and discarded experienced and principled people, recent world war veterans, from the military in droves, which long-term made USSR’s failure certain. Before the post-war rebuilding and Khruschev some of its institutions and systems were still respected. Stalin’s regime was horrible, but it was also less corrupt. After Stalin’s death and the following events, nobody managed to say “we failed and we should sit and think”. Well, Kosygin’s reforms which were not completed, growth of MIC, use of soldiers and students as workforce, slow decay, KGB thieves\assassins and degenerate fascists becoming the ruling class since late 70s, the rest is known.
The guy who answered you is actually right.
Outright military interventions and coups are part of the package called the real world.
Anyway, I would replace “capitalist” with “bandit” here. Because “capitalism” is just as square-abstract as “communism”, while IRL just as vulnerable to those.
See, there’s an important thing called “feedback”. If there’s no feedback from you, your life doesn’t matter and you get stomped upon.
60s-70s USSR had very weak feedback mechanisms, but still surprisingly better than today’s Russia. Some things that people just accept today would cause real protests there. Half the ministries would be paralyzed by people saying that following such a policy is against their conscience. I really believe that, yes.
But then, due to its slow collapse and decay, those feedbacks becoming stronger started pushing for change that would deprive the ruling class - KGB and similar or related people, bureaucrats and relatives, anyway, the real structures usually don’t have names, - of power. That’s when that class hijacked the popular movement from the likes of Sakharov or Starovoitova and created modern post-Soviet states.
Which means that it had blind zones with no feedbacks said class used. And the more centralist-bureaucratic and non-transparent a state is, the more blind zones it has.
Anything that takes the power from being distributed between separate people and assembles it into one Moloch, calling it “power of the people”, controlled by hell knows whom, means that those people who actually have principles will get stomped.
As we can see, though, same things happen in countries very far from being “communist” or “socialist”.