Are you a Tanky seriously?
Yes, actually, I think he is.
In any case, beyond Eastern Europe:
In Asia, Supes's ability to influence is
deeply limited. There's a PRC in the way, and you'd better believe the Sino-Soviet split is going to happen much faster and harder, with this mealy-willed crypto-Capitalist running the show in Russia. (Actual free elections!? What if the wrong sorts of Communists win!?). Korea's already said and done, with one side a Chinese puppet and the other an American satellite; nothing he can do there aside from urge both sides to get down to having actual elections.
In Indochina, we have an interesting case: without as much Soviet support for the Viet Cong, they might have a harder time kicking the French out; but with Eastern Europe domino-ing in the
opposite direction, it's very likely the US tells the French to pound sand (in Algeria) when they come begging for help. Lots of butterflies could send the outcome any which-way, but the most likely event is pretty much what happens, subbing in a few more liberal regimes due to the different choices in what outside forces are funding. (When huge numbers of ex-communist states start having
actual elections, it kind of reverse the historical truth of "we don't
dare let the communists take over, they'll cancel all further elections and you're stuck as a satellite state of Russia or China forever". In general you'll see much less support for 'any means necessary' on the Western side, given that the big threat that was brutally occupying a huge chunk of Europe and screaming "We Will Bury You!" is gone.)
India and Pakistan do their same mess. Nothing much Supes can do- though not funding the various loony-bin religious groups on either side will help, whether they proclaim they're doing it for the Workers or not. Also helpful:
not invading Afghanistan.
In the Middle East, Soviet support for the Ba'ath regimes and various Arab Nationalist dictators dries up, in lieu of pushing for actual Socialist Democracies (good luck, there, Supes). Without it, the Arab attempts to eliminate Israel go
even worse, if that's even possible. Not a lot of other changes, though generally the lack of the Cold War competition means the area is simply ignored more than OTL.
Latin America and Africa in general go somewhat smoother; when the outcome of losing the nation to communists just means you get a democratic chance to make it up later, rather than no more elections ever, it doesn't pay to repress them as much. (They also make more headway, being lumped in with the democratic socialists as part of the 'free left'.) Decolonization is messy, naturally, and South Africa is certainly going to be as much a pain ITTL as OTL.
Overall, decolonization is slowed by the USSR not being willing to toss funding at whatever insurgent group spouts the party line (Supes would be discerning), but goes
much smoother and to better result because the argument is "where is the line our economic system should function at, vis-a-vis level of government ownership" instead of "communist dictatorship, nationalist dictatorship, or liberal democracy", with the last of these
simply not available to people aligning with Moscow?
Heh. Having the government of the Soviet Union
actually care about the ideology they espouse, to include the little details like "free religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, democratic government", as opposed to being massive hypocrites that didn't
care enough about their own constitution to change it... changes quite a few things, actually, if relatively subtly.
Like I said, the whole thing is basically "what if Soviet Russia, but instead Huge Sweden". The simple removal of a titanic force for totalitarian repression on one side of the scale and its addition as a force for liberal democracy (
whatever the economic system used) on the other shifts the whole of the late 20th century in a much more positive direction.
