I understand how you can win a trade war against a geopolitical adversary, sure. What I don't understand is how you can win one against a neutral or friendly country. Even if you can cause 10 or 100 times more economic damage than the other guys can cause to you, isn't the small bit of damage you receive strictly worse than not receiving it by not having a trade war?
The win condition in that case would be that the leverage that being able to cause more damage than you take allows you to negotiate a better deal. It's like winning any other war. Both sides take damage during the war, but the winner is able to achieve its objective at the end.
