You need to establish your POD a bit further then. The soviets may have taken grievous losses to the Nazis, but by 1943, had turned the tide.
So, you'd need a few things to occur;
*The germans do far better. For example, winning Stalingrad decisively, not getting encircled, not outrunning their logistics.
*The allies commit to invading France far earlier, but get bogged down doing so, forcing a slow grind
I honestly can't see a way how either of these occur though. Unsure if the allies had the sea-lift capability to go in earlier, and the Germans, although initiating early defeats upon the soviets, underrated them badly, and assumed that they would fall apart. In OTL, that never happened, thus you'd need multiple PODs to explain that.
As far as the cold war goes, it really depends on a lot of things. Did Stalin perish? Is there a united leadership in Soviet Russia? How terrible were their casualties compared to OTL? What ultimately forced the Nazis to surrender?
At worst, you might see the Soviets turtle down, perhaps abandoning the Ukraine (Stalin dies, leadership in disarray, majority of fighting fought there). At best, the Soviets keep so much of the Wehrmacht pinned down in the eastern front that it is a relative cakewalk for the allies to storm Berlin, only to find a Soviet juggernaut on the border, poised to push forward into territory they feel is rightfully theirs (Stalin lives, Nazis routed, KV-1 is stronk!)
What the cold war devolves into largely depends on the outcome of WW2. Were the Soviets losses better or worse? How were the allies able to force a surrender, and what was the military position relative to that? Once you create a framework for how things occurred, it will be far easier to predict any cold war shenanigans.