Untrue. Plenty of regimes which rely on brute force have been brought down without "compromise" in the sense you mean it. What is needed is a coherent adequate strategyYour personal preference is irrelevant. It wasn't long ago when conquest was considered to be glorious.
There are no moral absolutes when it come to international politics. If you refuse to compromise, then you must accept the "might is right" principle and stop complaining.
Appeal to the wider global opinion and mass movements against the inherent injustice of ones enemy is a key part of that strategy. It has helped the struggle against many forms of oppression.
Just because I believe in the right to use force when fighting against oppression doesn't mean I believe "might is right" in general. "Using force" is simply a means, whether or not it is justified depends on the context, on the exact form it takes, and on the ends it is used for. Politics and war can't be reduced to a series of moral abstractions such as "either no force is justified ever or all force is always justified".
For example, I argue that it's justified to resist with force when someone is forcing you into ghettoes and exile and stealing your land, but not when you are using force to take over someone's ship in international waters which is being used to deliver aid to a population which needs it.
International law.Says who?