I've been reading about Soviet plans for ww3 and the specs of WARPAC armies during the 70s and 80s. They seem really OP. Like, NATO armies were doing all sorts of stuff, largely fighting insurgencies in their former colonies or in far off places. However, the Soviet army was a machine devoted to one thing and one thing only: winning world war 3 in Western Europe. They obsessively planned every detail, even down to how long it took men to form a skirmish line from a column. They predicted where defensive points would be located, they plotted out how many gallons of fuel and crates of ammo each formation would need. Each soldier was relentlessly drilled on his role in this plan. Materially, they outnumbered NATO significantly.
NATO doctrine revolved around cutting off soviet supply lines through the use of air superiority. The soviets had a tactic, for example, where you would attack with one division, then attack again with a reserve division once the first had worn out, allowing continuous offensives. However, you can't do that if your second division has been slowed down by air strikes and is a day late. Pursuing this 'air-land doctrine' would have required identifying key targets and winning air superiority rapidly, something which was assumed but unlikely. Clearing the air of Soviet planes would have taken weeks if not months, assuming NATO had a clear advantage. In the meantime HUGE formations would be sweeping across Europe.
It just seems incredibly hard to resist without hurling nukes. So assuming we take nukes out of the equation here, how would you (general anon) plan to halt a hypothetical WARPAC army group offensive in, let's say, 1980?