Well the USSR had sufficient control over it's sphere that it didn't need to "interfere" per se despite the norm against colonialism.

I seem to recollect conventional Soviet invasions of obstreperous Soviet puppet states followed by massacres by Soviet troops and soviet secret police.

One can argue that western Europe is largely puppet states of the US state department, but the State Department employs more decorous methods that do not leave behind so many bloodstains.

Well the USSR had sufficient control over it's sphere that it didn't need to "interfere" per se despite the norm against colonialism.

In the 1950s Kruschev used Anglo-French intervention in Egypt as an excuse/justification for not withdrawing from Hungary.

The Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan was opposed by the entire postcolonial world, including post-colonial states like India and Pakistan. The Soviet defeat at Afghanistan then may have led directly to the "Sinatra doctrine" which enabled the whole of Eastern Europe falling away.

As for the US, it could reasonably be argued that Latin America would be better off with more US interference for the same reason Africa was better off under colonialism.

An interactive graph

Africa has fallen behind the rest of the world in a way that Latin America hasn't.