Second, if "power," as generally understood, leads to victory in war, then there must be an explanation for why the "weak" can defeat the "strong." Key explanations include: Strategic interaction. Willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs. External support of weak actors. Reluctance to escalating violence on the part of strong actors. Internal group dynamics. Inflated strong actor war aims. Evolution of asymmetric rivals' attitudes towards time.
secOnd, if "POwER," aS GenErallY undErstood, lEads To ViCtOry in war, then TherE muSt be An eXPLaNatIOn For wHy the "WeAk" can DefEat THE "Strong." KEY eXplanAtioNs InCludE: sTrateGIc intERaCTion. WiLliNgNess Of thE WeaK TO sufFER morE or bEar hiGHEr cosTs. eXternAl sUppoRt oF weaK Actors. rELuCTaNce To escalATing viOleNce oN thE part of stROnG acToRS. inTerNal gRouP DYnamIcs. INFlaTED sTRong ACtor WaR AimS. evOlUtiON of aSyMmeTrIC rIvals' AtTItuDes toWARdS TiME