I studied this at uni and the impression I got was winning the Cold War was more of an American aim. While the Soviets definitely wanted a sphere of influence, they were content to be rivals, friendly or not. They viewed the capitalist system as flawed and believed it would eventually collapse on its own. Stalin was not much of an international communist, and was happy to split Eastern Europe into zones of influence for security.

The Americans, in succeeding administrations, viewed communism as a disease that had to be contained and hopefully destroyed, at home and abroad. Winning the Cold War was a particularly American policy, who felt they always a step behind or were paranoid they would be unable to defend themselves against presumed Soviet attack. They ramped up military spending through the Cold War to the point the Soviet inefficient centrally planned economy could not compete with without liberalising their society through glasnost and perestroika. This led to nationalist movements being encouraged in all soviet states, ultimately causing the Soviet Union to collapse.

The answer to that question depends on three core modes of historical interpretation. Much of the interpretation of 'strategy' hinges on the rush for influence over the developing world.

Firstly, the Liberalist interpretation has it that communism was believed to be, by the 'free world', a tyrannical and dangerous ideology which infringed on fundamental right of individuals to thrive in a world of true democracy. Liberalists believe that the US deployment in Vietnam was justified as it would both resist the infringement on Vietnamese freedom and stopping the spread of communism. To break it down, America GOOD, Soviet Union and China BAD.

Liberalism differs fundamentally from the Marxian interpretation which stresses that the rush for influence over the developing world was all about shaping the economic futures of those developing natures. Marxists typically believe that the US deployment in Vietnam was done so that the US could ensure its economic domination over Vietnam and ultimately to exploit Vietnam for its natural resources in order to maintain the vast military might f the US. In this regard, Marxists see the US as BAD and the Soviet Union and China as BETTER but perhas not GOOD.

Lasts there is realism, a comfortably balanced interpretation of events which shows no inherent favor to either side. Realists see both sides of the conflict as perusing their on goals and makes an effort to understandably justify why the US and the Soviet union saw things the way that they did. Realists teach us to be mindful of other interpretations of history and stress that despite the title of certain policies or strategies and how the motivations of a nations actions may seem to be noble or well-meaning, nations are fundamentally selfish and act in their own interests. To break Realism down: America BAD, Russia and Chine BAD.

I personally favor realism, although I believe there is some stock in the Marxian interpretation. These different interpretations/ methodological frameworks often radically differ in what they believe the 'main Cold War strategies' of the United States and the Soviet Union were.