edit: This is the only view I see that allows the losing entity to learn from the experience and avoid it in the future. Any other view just results in the same thing happening again in the future.
The expected "relativistic" cop-out. "Massive" means nothing if your opponent has substantially more. It simply means that no matter how much you want to escalate they can take it a notch higher and you will suffer just a bit more than your opponent. There are examples literally all around you.
> This is the only view I see that allows the losing entity to learn from the experience
The only way? It is a way best used when everything else has failed, like education. Am I to understand that you learned everything from personal experience? If you truly believe things are only ever learned on your own skin then you understand close to nothing about the world, history, and consequences, not living through almost any of them yourself. Which explains the narrow view.
Can this be applied to any situation where one party found itself (through error, inaction, incompetence, inability, etc.) in a position to be dominated or abused by anther party? Or is it only selectively applied based on personal preference or inclination? Because applying it selectively is exactly the double standards people (myself included) highlighted in this thread.
This may be pragmatic but it's also vicious towards the losing party. Politicians or corporations bribing or abusing power to get away with anything know how to play the game. The people being abused or losing everything are to blame for not successfully countering them.
Double standards are a good way to justify anything to your advantage by simply flipping the argument the way it suits you. As I wrote in a previous comment, it makes for exceptionally low quality conversation.