podcasts

The problem is that, especially post-Stalin, it did not treat them as equal partners or set them up for independent success. It created dependants, and this was great for its own position in the cold war game, but left the whole socialist world in shambles without it

Notably, the PRC is not taking any better action in this regard, and no alternatives from the 'the USSR helping anti-colonial liberation movements of the world was somehow bad' camp seem to be produced.
Also, what would be your solution when it comes to those movements not becoming dependent on the USSR in a world where NATO exists? Do you think that the USSR had the power to instantaneously make those countries as powerful as itself?

Internationalism doesn't mean shit if you build it in a manner where it all falls apart almost instantaneously, and in fact I think the way the USSR lost pretty much all the ground gained in the biggest decolonial moment in modern history is an unforgivable sin

It did not 'fall apart almost instantaneously', and it did not 'lose pretty much all the ground gained'. They are still better off than before their liberation.
It's also silly how you pretend as if the USSR helping those movements is an 'unforgivable sin', while the PRC helping NATO, such as by aiding the Mujahideen and fighting Vietnam, is somehow not.

but I also don't think there's really been many viable moments (outside of Palestine) where the PRC's support would leave a lasting impact

Okay, so, you expect the USSR to make other countries as capable in terms of economics and military as itself in the blink of an eye, but you also want to make excuses for the PRC being either unable or unwilling to do much more realistic things?
Apply the same standard to both, and either admit that the PRC has not only not produced independent/equal anti-colonial powers and should be criticised for that, or admit that the USSR having the liberated countries depend on it was better than what the PRC has been doing.