Not always might is an asset, not always heavyweights win, and lightweights lose. Not all conflicts are two-person zero-sum games in which the winner‟s gains equal to the loser's losses. Often, conflicts are “games” played by more than two players with varying skills and strengths, and gains and losses are distributed unevenly. A weak player can survive by exploiting the rivalry among stronger opponents. Political and economic contests are non-zero-sum games in which both competition and cooperation go together, and even the loser gets a stake. Based on a three-person threeway duel, this paper mathematically proves the proposition that, if played strategically, the weak can survive a conflict in a fight against far stronger opponents. The paper has limitations that are intrinsic to rational choice theory. The war between the State of Eritrea, the Federal Republic of Ethiopia, and the Tigray Liberation Front can be analysed using this game model. So long, as there is peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the chances of TPLF survival are extremely low.