Given enough resources, an adversary with an order of magnitude higher population, ability to invent/procure the finest of weapons, and so on is expected to win in a direct contest. That said, by using inovation, a smaller adversary can perform asymimetrically better. Whether by mobility, effective but cheaper weapons, guarilla warfare, novel new weapon catagories which make expensive weapon systems vulnerable (guns vs. armor, tanks vs. calvery, planes vs. battleships, etc.), a smaller force can punch way above their weight class. It doesn't mean they can overcome the enemy's forces, but they can be expensive enough to compete against to change the dynamics of the political aspects of the competition.

The political challenge in the current negotiations is that the moderator who has injected himself to solve it is obviously biased and wants to end the conflict quickly at the expense of the smaller combatant in order to gain a personal Nobel Peace Prize (it fits the "retribution theme" that two of his "personal" adversaries have gotten them in the recent past - Barack Obama and Greta Thunberg, but, so far, he has been shunned).

Jeff