because the west is powerful and rich, also they're honkies too

It's a very good question and one I don't have a good answer.

Thinking aloud I'll admit in Stalin's case there was definitely some pragmatism to not going off on the west. The USSR was still behind developmentally and especially after the great war and losing so many people, so much industry, farmland, etc there might have been real fears of collapse or being overrun and so there might have been a really strong attempt to offer an olive branch, to do the utmost to be conciliatory and non-threatening to buy time to grow, recover, develop. Though after a certain point this does make less sense.

The capitalists and liberal-roaders during late (Gorbachev) and after the fall of the USSR make far more sense given they strongly believed that the difference between west and Russia wasn't that the west was a club of aristocratic old racists and colonialists intent on dominating and exploiting everyone not a member of the club but that it was all shared values and that the communism was the threatening thing instead of the whole Russian bourgeoisie being minor outsiders who were not desired to grow to the heights of the western capitalists and aristocracy as Russia was slated for plunder. Besides that the planners of empire of course, the US and UK specifically knew a country as large, diverse, rich in resources as Russia could not be allowed to rise and join the club as it would inevitably seize a large amount of power from their factions for itself and its interests.

When talking of Russian reluctance to confront the west over e.g. Ukraine it is also important to remember material interests. Russia has been slapped with massive sanctions, their economy has been partially decoupled from by the west and the west is gearing up for war with Russia within the next 10 years and calling them a threat which must be destroyed. All because Russia had the audacity to swat away the dagger being positioned under its heart in Ukraine. Putin was definitely suckered by the west for a while but it was an inconvenient reality to face the need to confront the west. The result has been painful. Right now Russia is staring down a likelihood of years of devastating and spectacular western intelligence service aided terrorist attacks like those recently seen on two passenger trains where bridges were blown up and the attacks on their strategic bombers. They've had top generals assassinated in Moscow. They are enduring a horrible pain and knew to some extent they'd get things like this for challenging the west so were inclined to try diplomacy past the point of foolishness just in some vague hope they could work this out. As you I'm not convinced Russia won't drop many of its critical demands or moderate them and make concessions to end the Ukraine war. I hope they don't. I think it'd be foolish and selling the future for the present but they might and the west thinks they might which is why they're doing all this.

I suppose I'd have to guess it may be the whiteness, the lack of experience with the full brutality of extended colonization (though I'll note fascism is really just colonialism used on white people and over 1940-1944 the USSR experienced a great deal of pain inflicted in a short period by that though admittedly the end of that did have some help from the west who were portrayed as allies against it).

Thinking about the DPRK they were never really courted in the way the west has courted and tried to deceive and charm Russia/USSR and its leadership. Thinking of Iran they likewise were saddled with dictatorship and never really courted by the west but imposed with isolation and sanctions for their revolution. China has somewhat warmer relations but pragmatism and that comes from the west courting them for the Sino-Soviet split and because they exploited the west's hunger to profit from their population. Many smaller socialist states like Cuba, etc have been subject to crushing sanctions, coup attempts, color revolutions, etc perhaps because they're seen as small enough to easily crush while larger powers like the USSR and China are seen as better dealt with through courting and deception. I think the role of diplomacy and messaging may play a role as the west has certainly fostered a certain kind of attitude towards some nations and not others.

The us had nukes and actually showed the willingness to use it - twice. Meanwhile the Soviets were destroyed by war and didn’t have the largest economy in the world to bail them out.

Later under gorbi, the soviets became revisionists and actually thought they could live with the capitalists in peace (lol)

Its a stalling tactic and not giving the west a easy way to justify war. Especially relevant for modern prc.

For Stalin at least, the second half of the Chinese Civil War was basically the first modern proxy war with the KMT being supported by the US. Stuff like Stalin telling Greek communists to stand down needs to be viewed in this context. Stalin being less assertive in Europe mattered less when the CPC triumphed over the KMT with Soviet support. Even Stalin being unwilling to support the DPRK can be read as him assuming that the PRC would support the DPRK anyways and having both the SU and the PRC openly support the DPRK would lead to the US escalating towards nukes (and the US was already close to using nukes on the PVA). Plus, Stalin was super old at that point so it might be him not wanting to start something but not live long enough to see it end along with poor judgment on his part.

In Stalin's case in 1950, only 5 years after WW2, I don't blame him for not wanting to escalate things to WW3, all while knowing the US had nukes and the USSR didn't really. Keep in mind this was before our modern idea of M.A.D. and it wasn't known if nukes would just be a regular part of warfare going forward or not. A pragmatic decision to not aggravate the US does make sense considering what the USSR was dealing with at the time. They didn't even know if they could win a war against the US, and didn't want to take that gamble.

I've heard scuttlebutt about US think tank players like Focus on The Family moving in following the collapse. I doubt this is the whole of it, but I wonder what their role here is.

Look, russia and the USSR has consistently been led by people who have even less of an idea of what the situation is on the ground than even US politicians. In the US, thats becuase they are bourgeois and live in a world where the banks print money for you. In the USSR, it was because the founders were ideologues who would ignore reality if it didnt march to the tune of their political beliefs and this set the tone for the organization, at least up until they got Gorbachev who was actually sane but was handed a losing hand. In Russia, its because Putin is surrounded by a bunch of bobbleheads who each in turn are surrounded by their own bobbleheads who also have their own posse of bobbleheads as well, and on top of this these bobbleheads are bourgeois who live in a world where the banks print money for you. I have absolutely no idea what motivates the leaders of modern Russia, but i know its not anything that would make sense in the real world or even in the world the bourgeois live in, and I think this mismatch is causing all their issues with the West.