Soviet involvement in Korea and Vietnam was reactionary. History lesson time. At the end of WW2, The US, Britain, and the USSR essentially agreed to not get involved in internal uprisings in Europe. In essence, the West and the Soviets would "let the chips fall where they may". This lasted all of 2 seconds, when the British and US intervened in subduing the Greek communist uprising, and then imposing a pro-Western government in the Western part of Germany, as well as Austria. This was one of the chief reasons why the Iron Curtain was dropped. The Soviets initially allowed all of their "satellites" to have non-communist governments, so long as the communists had a seat at the table, admittedly a dominant seat. It isn't until 1947 that you see the Soviet reaction. Potsdam was being violated. The agreements Stalin had with FDR were thrown out by Truman, as Truman took a hard anti-Soviet stance. The Soviets reacted to the intervention in Greece, and the imposition of pro-Western governments in the Western Occupied areas, by imposing pro-Soviet governments in the Soviet occupied areas.
Regarding Africa? Again, reactionary. I'm actually unaware of any countries in Africa where the USSR took the lead in getting up to trouble. For example, they became involved in Angola, AFTER South Africa, became involved. Moreover, the Soviets put the brakes on Cuba who was eager as all heck to actually militarily intervene in Angola. The Soviet aim was to simply contain the South Africans in the South African effort to intervene against the communists.
Unless of course you're of the belief that every single communist/socialist uprising around the world was the work of the Soviet Union. Which would be factually incorrect. Perhaps if Stalin didn't literally murder internationalism with an ice pick in Mexico City, there might be a case to be made for the Communist Internationalist Movement guided by Moscow. Except, Stalin killed internationalism. He barely helped the Red Chinese, and that was one of the root causes of DECADES of animosity between the Soviet Union and China. The Soviets BARELY intervened in Korea, giving some old T-34 tanks, and selling/giving weapons. The Chinese were the hard carry in Korea. Likewise in Vietnam. Soviets had nothing to do with North Vietnam trying to unify the country, and became involved as a passive external actor (supplying weapons) after the French/US were fighting the VM->VC and the North.
Was the Soviet Union active around the world? Yep. They "intervened" in a largely indirect, non-confrontational manner, in areas where they saw "Imperialist" powers acting. This was largely opportunism, wherever the US intervened, the Soviets would arm the Socialists/Communists present in said country that the US was acting against.
I'd be very interested to see you provide a list of countries the USSR agitated in, that the US, or a US ally wasn't already involved. It's going to be a pretty short list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International
The Communist International, was the exportation of Lenin's "vanguard communism" around the world. That was from 1919, until Lenin died. Practically, Internationalism died when Lenin died. Trotsky was Lenin's internationalist acolyte. When Stalin had Trotsky murdered with an ice pick in Mexico City in 1940, that was the de-facto end of any hope of Internationalism. From that point on, the concept of the Communist International, spearheaded by the Soviet Union was dead.
Stalin himself, you could make a strong argument that he wasn't even a true believer of Communism, rather he was a power hungry Nationalist, who saw Communism as an opportunity and a means to a Nationalistic end. Stalin, very clearly, did not believe in internationalism. In 1943, he formally dissolved the Communist International. Moreover, he is on record as saying that he did not believe that Communism made sense for any other country. He believed it was applicable uniquely to the USSR.
The fact you don't seem to know any of this, or are ignoring it, makes me tend to believe you really don't know what you're talking about, and have no actual education on this subject beyond Cold War era propaganda. If the USSR wanted to effect a global socialist revolution, they would have directly intervened in Greece. Nobody could have stopped them. They would have directly intervened in Korea. They would have imposed Unitary communist governments on ALL of the occupied countries at the end of WW2, immediately, and not waited 2 years to do it, in response to pro-western governments being established in the Western areas of occupation. You can say what you believe they intended, and you can actually look at what they did to suss out their actual intentions. So far it isn't looking very good for "global socialist revolution" in the post Lenin era.
Militarily, they would have pursued a far different army, and naval doctrine in terms of weapon procurement and development to pursue this "global socialist revolution". The fact that the Soviets did not pursue anything but a token blue water navy, designed specifically to to supplement their brown water navy. Their navy was entirely defensive in nature, and the decision in the late 1970's to invest into aircraft carriers was contrary to their post WW2 outlook on what their navy was, what it was for, and what it meant for their foreign policy.
The simple fact is, the Soviet Union post WW2, had plenty of opportunity to actually intervene in plenty of areas, in a non-passive way, to instigate. They didn't. I alluded to Greece. Had the USSR been actually bent on a global revolution, nothing could have stopped them from ensuring Greece fell to communism. Likewise in Korea. Had they been invested in this "global" revolution, they could have just swept down with the North and settled the entire issue in a matter of weeks. When the USSR was in its absolute strongest position regarding realized military power, it didn't intervene.
So please, give me some actual concrete examples of the USSR pushing this global socialist agenda post WW2? Make sure these are incidents that are not reactionary.
I'll also remind you, that the USSR categorically refused to become military involved in plenty of civil wars involving communists, and it was this refusal to engage, that in large part led to DECADES of animosity between, for example, China and the USSR. It's funny, you'd think that the USSR would be chomping at the bit to ensure a country like China with a non-insignificant % of the global population, flipped communist. I mean, as part of their "global socialist revolution", yet, their aid was minuscule.
The facts really don't support your position I'm afraid. Stalin killed internationalism, literally. Soviets practiced non-intervention in plenty of conflicts, taking a passive reactionary role. Their military was designed entirely around defense and localized power projection, eschewing a major blue water navy, which is foundational to projecting power around the globe.
It's something that has always conflicted my mind, because I'm a nice person by nature, so I wish everyone had their liberties and we lived in some sort of utopia, but the pragmatic and realistic side I have developed of myself throughout the years has helped me realise how and why the world works as it does.