To be clear, I meant that their contributions to NK paled in comparison to the Chinese. The Soviets never fielded group troops, and their air combat was limited.
Per that Wikipedia article, the USSR only had about ~3200 people involved, exclusively in air combat, compared to the Chinese's 250,000 man army.
Nor was the air support comprehensive: "Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no closer than 60 miles (96 km) from the battlefront."
"It has been alleged by the Chinese that the Soviets had agreed to full scale air support, which never occurred south of Pyongyang, and helped accelerate the Sino-Soviet Split."
The Soviets also invoiced China for the price of the air and group equipment they provided, per your article. Hardly traditional "backing"?
Oh, and Stalin apparently approved of reunification, per your other article:
> The People's Republic of China acquiesced only reluctantly to the idea of Korean reunification after being told by Kim that Stalin had approved the action.[35][36][37]
I stand by my statement that while North Korea had backing from the USSR, it was mainly the Chinese involvement that has made it what it is today. One needs to only look at the politics in the meantime to see that the Russians left Korea, Manchuria, etc to be dealt with by others, and that China has been instrumental in using its UN voting powers to sway intervention about NK, and being its only notable trading partner.
In any case, you've hardly allayed my original point that the US and USSR have both had numerous political gaffes, and that mere involvement of one or the other doesn't constitute "goodness" or "badness". The US has quashed democracy as much as it has promoted it.
However, their lack of direct involvement in the following war was one of the big reasons that the Chinese Communists and Soviets parted ways.
It's much more accurate to say that the Chinese support of North Korea made it what it is today. Not Soviet.