Commanders at Gallipoli repeatedly ordered assaults against fortified positions, losing thousands for negligible gain. This illustrates a strategic trap where the inability to conceive alternatives leads to repeating failed actions, literally the definition of insanity.

Despite clear military failure, leaders like Lord Kitchener argued against withdrawal, fearing it would damage Britain's prestige. This shows how intangible factors like reputation can force leaders to double down on disastrous decisions and ignore logical exit strategies.

Empires in decline develop a toxic combination of hubris and desperation. Their leaders become so insular that they refuse to hear bad news, causing them to double down on failing strategies.

Administrations that experience initial success with military force, like the Soleimani strike, may start believing they have a 'hot hand.' This leads them to ignore predictable downside scenarios and double down on risky strategies, assuming past luck will continue.

When a leader initiates a conflict, an exit that leaves the situation worse than before is politically untenable. This dynamic creates immense pressure to avoid withdrawal and instead escalate involvement, as backing out becomes "political suicide."

Leaders often fail to separate outcome from process. A good result from a bad decision (like a risky bet paying off) reinforces poor judgment. Attributing success solely to skill and failure to bad luck prevents process improvement and leads to repeated errors over time.

Initial military actions, like successful bombings, can feel like victories. However, they often fail to solve the core political issue, trapping leaders into escalating the conflict further to achieve the original strategic goal, as they don't want to accept failure.

Putin's desire to continue the war outweighs any potential benefits offered in negotiations. This persistence is not based on a reasonable assessment of the situation but on sunk costs, personal legacy, and a belief that Russia's sheer will can outlast Western support.

Once people invest significant time, money, and social identity into a group or ideology, it becomes psychologically costly to admit it's wrong. This 'sunk cost' fallacy creates cognitive dissonance, causing people to double down on their beliefs rather than face the pain of a misguided investment.