I believe (not an expert) it is more important to minimize losses that to maximize wins in game theory (cold war roots). Viewed in that light most game theory results are, in fact, extremely intuitive.
That sounds meaningless. Aren't they the same thing? Isn't minimizing losses effectively mean maximizing wins? Give me an example where minimizing losses is not the same as maximizing wins. The only cases where it is not is if you haven't vetted out (or could not vet ) the complete outcome of all possible moves that you can make next, for example chess, where the game tree could be of infinite (or deep enough to process in reasonable time) depth.
But chess programs are coded to try all possible tree paths to a reasonable depth given the time constraints and pick a move that has the best weight/score/winning chances. Not a move that has least losses. From that perspective it is all about maximizing the chances of winning. Although I am sure they are also coded to recognize draw conditions and play for draw if that is more effective. So it is not so dry and cut.
So when you are not sure of the certainty of the outcome of the several possible moves you could make next in a game, the best strategy is to pick the one with maximum winning chances not minimal losses. Especially if you think the opposite party is also going to play to win. Next, if your chances of losing are increasing, then play for draw first and lastly mutual destruction (to force the opposite player to draw)
Even in the 'cold war roots' that you mention, the goal is not just to occupy/conquer the opposite country. The goal is also to do so at minimal loss to ourselves. So "winning" in the game of war "is to conquer enemy country at minimal losses or maintain status quo if the losses would be substantial/irrecoverable". So you are always playing to 'win'.