Adm Falls was mistaken. In fact, I was in Germany in 1981, working at 4 CMBG HQ. The Warsaw Pact exercise that ran concurrent with our final ex had nothing to do with a NATO invasion; it was, very much, a show of force intended to demonstrate just what the Warsaw Pact was capable of doing. Ours was focused on defense against a WP strike out of Czechoslovakia, into Germany through the Hohenfels area. We thought, at the time, that it was very decent of them to show us just what that would look like, on their side of the border.
I am not saying that the Warsaw Pact never ran offensive exercises, I am saying that MOST of their exercises were of a defensive nature, as were NATO's. Because you can point to one example that shows otherwise does not mean I, nor the good Admiral (who I would suspect is an authority on the subject), are incorrect.
My overall argument here is that the way we in the West view the Cold War is inaccurate. Of course the Soviets pursued all means to help their cause. I am suggesting that some of those policies were in response to Western provocation. That's all. I am not suggesting I would have preferred that the USSR had won the Cold War, I was happy to see it collapse. I am merely saying that commonly accepted history on this subject matter tends to be extremely biased (as is to be expected, history being written by the winners and all that), and that there are two sides to every coin. In general, obviously the USSR was aggressive. It was a major power. But in comparison to the US (which is how this debate must be seen, as it deals with a bipolar struggle) the USSR was NOT the aggressor. I see where your argument as merit on the basis that Soviet human rights abuses were numerous. This would give the US moral credit in making more of a concerted effort to destabilize it. However, human rights and similar issues were not primary motivating factors in the US, nor the West.