You'll have to PM Ikalugin
for lots of information about PACT's side.
In terms of global strategy, NATO was basing its defences on the fact that if USSR attacked, they would nuke (and get nuked back) each other to smithereens. The armies were rather "Weak" and in a conventional war, NATO would have lost once the USSR's warmachine would have started. NATO would have, in a conventional fight, used lots of air support, Neutron "anti-armoured batallions" nukes, while the ground armies would hold and get pushed back slowly (especially if the war started in Germany.
PACT wouldn't have attacked though. The Soviets had their "Buffer zone" with its.. Herm... Allies... for an attack from nato to be slowed down and a massive counter attack would have been prepared. Nukes would have been used tactically (small scale) to wipe out major clusters of troops. The armies were less reliant on air support that was mostly short range counter-attack than straight up agression (they would have broken NATO air support if they were attacked, but wouldn't be able to reliably and repeatedly attack NATO ground).
Soviet doctrine was all about counter attacks, NATO doctrine was all about fallin back while causing as much damage as possible.
The "Minor nations" on pact side were just there to hold NATO's attack until the soviet war machine was launched. Htere participation would ahve been minimal overall.
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: ScissorsMy Youtube Channel