Regarding war, the most common countermeasure used by authoritarian countries is not necessarily direct confrontation, but rather delaying tactics. Because under different systems, the constraints on decision-making are completely different: one type of regime is often limited by election cycles, checks and balances, public opinion oversight, as well as financial and allied coordination, which means it must convert "pressure" into "results" within a relatively limited time window in external actions; otherwise, internal support will waver. Meanwhile, another type of regime, due to concentrated power and stronger policy continuity, is less sensitive to short-term costs and public opinion fluctuations, and has more room to endure long-term consumption. Therefore, the rational choice of the latter is often not to fight decisively and quickly, but to prolong the conflict rhythm, create ambiguous zones, and disperse sources of risk, gradually weakening the opponent through institutional constraints over time. Additionally, multi-level action structures (such as loose connections between different forces) can further increase attribution difficulty, making it hard for opponents to quickly form a unified response. In this structural game, one side pursues efficiency and phased results, while the other bets on endurance and uncertainty. The real contest is not just about resources or military strength, but about "who can better control the rhythm" and "who can better utilize the time structure."