They never seemed that competent (Red Army Faction and the other similar Terrorist groups of that era). Kidnapping, robberies and the occasional bomb yes, but acquiring and using heavy weapons not so much.
In one of the more Pro-Soviet and outlandish WWIII 1980s era novels, the author purported that direct Soviet sabotage (GRU/KGB) of NATO airbases (by suicide squads) would result in the destruction of virtually all of NATO's air assets on the ground. Apparently the author came from the Walter C. Short school of warfare.
There's also the practical considerations that logistical provisions for both sides when it came to dealing with the chemical environment were... not stellar. Sure, the more immediate protective gear was all there but, for example, neither side had the first clue how they were going to provide the massive quantities of uncontaminated clean water that would be needed to decontaminate exposed equipment. Such sort of longer-term measures are pretty damn necessary if ones going to operate within these immense gas clouds for days and weeks on end.
And that the persistent gas would remain in fatal levels of residue on the ground regardless of levels of decontamination. The soldiers might be safe from airborne gas at that point, but there'd be the issue of all those countless civilian rotting corpses fouling up the water table. Not too mention that for both sides it really wouldn't be safe to remove protective gear for touching hard surfaces. This isn't all happening in a field exercise.
Then there's the matter of having of having to import several billion tons of insect larvae to allow for crosspollination before even the simplest crops can be grown...

Win-lose-or-draw for either side. Which brings us back to "Does the USSR even CARE if their WP 'allies' see their countries turned into a desert?"
I would have loved to see a Kirov try and take on an Iowa. If the Kirov can keep her distance, she's got a chance. If the Iowa can get within gun range though, Kirov will be on the bottom shortly.
I confused...? Isn't this like an argument of carriers vs. battleships? Both the Iowa and the Kirov were nuclear armed during the Cold War. Does the Kirov get to use its arsenal of missiles with conventional warheads? IIRC they weren't compatible for anything but nukes (too high a re-entry speed). The Iowa hade harpoons and cruise missiles, the cruise missiles including nuke versions, the harpoons I'm not sure about. Gun range IMO would be irrelevant. AISI, it would all depend on whether both sides had satellite intel, and if they started far enough away. If far distant, with nukes, bye-bye Iowa. Though the cruise missiles might turn the battle into MAD. If conventional, then IMO its Iowa all the way. The SLCMs are a great asset.