@BrianZ thanks for this comment. Indeed, another puzzle for me is how Comintern was able to gain such an unquestionable power over the Communists outside of the Soviet Union (some of them openly betrayed their countries in 1939-41 out of loyalty to the SU.) I realize now that the two questions are related, but it remains a question for me. So I would appreciate a more detailed discussion.

Socialist Party in Germany in the 1920's and early '30's; Spanish Civil War; Unrest in Italy leading up to Mussolini's assumption of power in March 1919; support of anti-Nazi resistance from France to Greece starting in June1941 (most of which was non-existent prior to Barbarossa). All of the preceding were supported in some degree by the Soviets. How is this not far too basic a question, with a confirming answer virtually everywhere one might think to look?

@PieterGeerkens I would not characterize any of those as socialist revolutions except Germany's, and that one received practically nil in Bolshevik support.

@PieterGeerkens Support for Spanish Civil War and later fall outside of the question - by then the USSR has already survived in power in Russia without the help of the European revolution. These are more politics intended to favor Soviet Union, not attempts at revolution. However, discussing Bolsheviks' role in Germany and Italy in 1920-s could make for a good answer.

@MoisheKohan this is an opinion... it needs to he supported by facts, quotes and numbers to be taken seriously.

Start by reading en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic, especially on Lenin's role.

@MoisheKohan this is helpful. But I have to point out that your tone is condescending snd violates SE rules

We will have to agree to disagree on this: I see nothing condescending in my tone and nothing that violates any rules. But feel free to discuss this with SE moderators.

@MoisheKohan well, perhaps it's just poor knowledge of English or cultural background.

See also the Wikipedia article on Comintern, specifically, the 1st period of Comintern. I think it has enough examples.

@MoisheKohan if you can answer this question - write a full answer. It is not clear what you are trying to achieve by dropping links which contain so little useful information.

This is because I am unsure if your question should be closed, since it can be answered by obvious (to me) Wikipedia references.

I see based on your later comments you want to restrict the time frame. But it's not clear at all from the Q text what that time frame you envisage is. Please edit the Q to make that clear. E.g. do you assume the period of interest is before 1938 when Stalin wrote that "comrade Ivanov" article? Or before he gave the 1936 interview to Howard? Or some other year? When Stalin took power? The Q title could likewise use more clarity.

Furthermore, I'm not sure one can make a neat distinction between exporting revolution for the sake of doing that vs doing it for the interest of the USSR, as it's implied in the framing of this Q. Clearly Stalin himself did some intervention abroad (Spain etc.) as discussed above.

Also, e.g. in 1949 Stalin helped China/PLA invade Xinjiang wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/… It wasn't the USSR who was the main beneficiary of that. Etc.

@Fizz the timeframe is restricted in the OP, as I explicitly talk about the early Bolsheviks needing European revolution for survival. It seems that many people simply do jot understand what I am talking about, so I am not impressed by the comments and downvotes.

I've read it, but the more times I re-read it, the more problems I see. "a European revolution" for example. Clearly it was unrealistic to expect all countries to have one at the same time. Even Lenin came to that conclusion pretty quickly, maybe around 1920. So that makes your Q a bit of a red herring. Clearly the USSR didn't give up on turning some countries (esp. in their "near abroad"), even if a simultaneous revolutions looked ever more unlikely. See e.g. 1934 intervention in Xinjiang.

@Fizz let's stop the chitchat. The comments are for improving the question. You seem to think that the question is bad... but you still want to discuss it. It doesn't work this way.

After your comments under my answer, I think this Q is ultimately based on a simple misreading of some source. Wikipedia says "Trotskyists" not "Bolsheviks" believed what you attribute to them in the first para. If you replace "Bolsheviks" with "Trotskyists" in the title Q, it's perhaps more focused, although given that Trotskyists were never themselves in absolute control of some country, and were soon sidelined in the USSR, it's a much more "meh" question.

@Fizz trotskyists vs. Bolsheviks is a distinction drawn largely after the period in question, mainly as Stalin's propaganda, and Trotsky's attempts to distance himself from stalinism. The question was intended to go beyond Wikipedia.

@MCW could you move this discussion to chat?

@MCW: thanks for moving all the comments to chat! Obviously none of them were addressing any issues with the question, as your (auto-generated) summary implies /s