We currently know next to nothing about the Pact objective. It is logical however to assume that Nato jumped first radically changing the Pact's plans from an all encompassing offensive, to a counter offensive.
It is also probable that their offensive's aims were not all that great. Pact units of all readiness categories had been mutinying since 1997/98 and so we can assume that generally morale wasn't all that high. Therefore, the Pact command wouldn't be all that confident they could manage more than fairly limited gains.
However, the more success a unit sees, the better their morale is likely to be. The Pact command would be aware of this and may well had organised their plan into stages - ie. if objective A was reached, then objective B would be considered, then if B was reached and the troops were still behaving, they'd move on to C, and so on...
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudorem
|