So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).
I'll give this is the case for Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, but Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland? The Soviet Union was very eager to reestablish the hegemony held by Tsarist Russia over Eastern Europe, even in the Balkans where they failed because the communist government there rejected their influence.
And speaking of overtly genocidal aggressors, the USSR. Just ask the Ukraine in particular.
Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.
Yes, that is aggression. The partition
had already occurred, and diplomatic answers to that issue were available. Not easy and likely to take a long time to be effective, but available. Especially since you should not make the mistake of presuming that there was only
one foreign power involved in those partitions or suppressing inconvenient plebiscites. South Vietnam and South Korea would be just as justified to strike out against the Soviet backed North Vietnam and North Korea under that assumption.
And no, the United States of America were not the aggressors in the American Civil War because they shot back against the Confederacy. The Confederacy was the aggressor because the negotiated peace that was available, the Missouri compromise would've eventually resulted in a delegated plebiscite that would decide the matter. It's just that the slave states had realized that the situation was such that the climate in most of the USA was not supportive of the sort of agriculture that supports slave based production practices, which meant that by the time the plebiscite would be called they'd lose the vote.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Most "Communist plots" only existed in American conspiracy theories; the Soviets were exceedingly fair-weather friends to anti-colonial groups. (Also, too, most colonial governments that those groups were revolting against were Antebellum Dixie style slave-trading, plantation owning swine, who absolutely deserved everything the revolutionaries could do to them, but that's another story.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_resistance_in_Chile_(1973%E2%80%931990)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Malaysia_(1968%E2%80%9389)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Sarawak (specific component of the insurgency in Malaysia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_uprising_of_1935 (the ComIntern supporting the uprising were primarily led by the USSR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Peruhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Uprising (ComIntern influencing the revolutionaries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_ThailandRight, there were no communist plots to establish USSR backed and friendly governments. And this is just the USSR backed ones, other communist governments also did a few. That the targets of the rebellions in question were scum does not mean that the USSR did not back them with the expectation of not getting a loyal puppet/friendly allied government in return, along with certain other benefits you usually get from grateful governments you are keeping in power.