Slop.

If anyone wants to convince libs of this we're gonna need some wikipedia sourcing on this, and the article best showing the Soviet policy in the 1930s of collective security is that of Maxim Litvinov, People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939:

In 1930, Joseph Stalin appointed Litvinov People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Litvinov, who was a firm believer in collective security, worked to form a closer relationship with France and the United Kingdom

In 1935, Litvinov negotiated the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance and another treaty with Czechoslovakia with the aim of containing Nazi Germany's aggression. Writing in A History of the League of Nations (1952), F. P. Walters expressed "astonished admiration", praising Litvinov's farsighted analysis:

No future historian will lightly disagree with any views expressed by Litvinov on international questions ... Nothing in the annals of the League can compare with them in frankness, in debating power, in the acute diagnosis of each situation. No contemporary statesman could point to such a record of criticisms justified and prophecies fulfilled

Litvinov has been considered to have concentrated on taking strong measures against Italy, Japan and Germany, and being little interested in other matters

On 15 April 1939, Litvinov sent a comprehensive proposal to Stalin for a tripartite agreement with Britain and France. The following day, Litvinov saw Stalin to discuss his draft, which Stalin approved. According to Soviet records, Litvinov submitted detailed arguments in favour of the proposed pact, which Stalin accepted. Litvinov stated they ought not to wait for the other side to propose what the Soviets wanted. Litvinov summarised his proposals, which were for mutual assistance in case of aggression against the Soviet Union, Britain or France; and support for all states bordering the Soviet Union, including Finland and the Baltic States. It also provided for rapid agreement on the form such assistance would take. There would be an agreement not to conclude a separate peace.

By 16 April, Stalin still had faith in Litvinov and had no immediate plans to remove him. No concrete proposals for a Nazi-Soviet pact had been made by either country. Litvinov said: "We can expect urgent and complex negotiations with the French and especially the British. We need to monitor public opinion and try to influence it. "The new proposals had Stalin's support; Litvinov summoned the British Ambassador, William Seeds, while he was at the theatre with his wife. Litvinov could have had the proposals conveyed to the Embassy with a request for Seeds to visit Litvinov urgently in the morning.

Litvinov had a poor opinion of Neville Chamberlain, and was not surprised Russia's proposal for an alliance was not welcomed, but he may have been surprised by the attitude of the British Foreign Office. Alexander Cadogan, in his diary, described Litvinov's proposals as "mischievous". A Foreign Office report to the Foreign Affairs Cabinet Committee termed them 'inconvenient'. On 7 June 1939, Winston Churchill stated he "much preferred the Russian proposals. They are simple. They are logical and conform to the main groupings of common interest." Churchill also stated the Soviet claim the Baltic States should be included in the triple guarantee was well founded. Three years later, Britain would agree a similar pact of assistance with the Soviet Union. Litvinov's proposals were also conveyed to the French Ambassador Émile Naggiar.

As soon as the proposals reached the French Government, the first reaction of Georges Bonnet, the Foreign Minister, was different from that of the British Government and Foreign Office. Bonnet saw the Soviet Ambassador Jakob Suritz, who cabled that "the first impression of the French is very favourable".Britain persuaded the French Government to take no action until a common policy had been formulated. In talks between the French and the British governments, both failed to either accept or reject the proposals until after Litvinov's dismissal on 4 May. Molotov proceeded with negotiations for a pact and a military mission left for Moscow.

The Foreign Office confirmed to the US chargé d'affaires on 8 August 1939 "the military mission, which had now left for Moscow, had been told to make every effort to prolong discussions until 1 October 1939". Lord Halifax the British Foreign Secretary, disclosed to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 10 July 1939: "Although the French were in favour of the military conversations commencing, the French Government thought that the military conversations would be spun out over a long time and as long as they were taking place we should be preventing Soviet Russia from entering the German camp.

I didn't even bother arguing the history, to be honest. Even if you take the building block of "the Soviet leadership were Nazi collaborators" at face value (and I agree with you that they were not), the user's stance is abhorrent. It's a basic failure in morality that's almost beyond belief, and the only "ideology" I can think of that it's consistent with is fascism.

There was a British governmental official that actively founded the „african troops are r*ping white woman in the rhineland“ mass information campaign because he thought french troops treated locals residents too badly (they did literally murdering communists and union leaders too force workers to work more)