The UEF can't win a conventional conflict, and doesn't need to. I said it in the chivalry thread, but the way a lesser invaded power defeats a superpower is not through conventional force of arms, but by making even minute losses politically and socially unacceptable to their enemy. It works in any scenario where the sides are lopsided. It's why the US abandoned Vietnam, it's why the Russians abandoned Afghanistan, it's why the US will withdraw from Iraq, and its why NATO is withdrawing from Afghanistan. Populations are not willing to accept individual losses in limited warfare. They can accept larger losses in limited war, or individual losses in total war, but the converse is not true. By way of example, what is putting NATO out of Afghanistan is a civilian/political belief in their home nations that the losses are unacceptable based on the nature of the conflict. Despite the relatively few NATO casualties, our populations are unwilling to accept those individual stories of loss in this scenario.
In the context of BP, Laporte and her allies are trying to avert catastrophe on a much larger scale than the GTVA-UEF war. To end that relatively minor conflict, all she needs to do is make the military option no longer acceptable to the GTVA. She doesn't need to - and it would be counterproductive if she did - destroy large numbers of their forces or win an outright military victory. In fact, all she really needs to do in this conflict is severely discredit the idea of war between the GTVA and the UEF, which is physically embodied in Admiral Steele. Kill, capture, or discredit Steele and the war itself is over, particularly because of Khonsu's beliefs. Steele IS the war for the GTVA. His loss (death, capture, or discrediting) would be unacceptable to the social and political actors that are supporting the war back home and end the conflict immediately. The GTVA is not willing to commit to a total war scenario, despite how this may look.
