Helloooo

Me, I think it would be difficult to argue here in the absolute sense. I think in general terms that while inadequate strength will be overcome by superior technique, inadequate technique will
also be overcome by superior strength.
I would suggest that the key is to equip ourselves with
both technique and the strength to specifically apply that technique. I think it is important that we equip ourselves with both but that we do so in the correct proportion [technique being naturally more important].
I do not believe there is any martial art that wins out solely through strength; technique is imperative for the strength in the in the strike / kick / throw / lock to be applied correctly, yes?
And but I think often in Aikido we can assume that technique will succeed regardless, whereas even a precisely applied Aikido technique cannot be applied without a measure of strength [no matter how little] to project our energy. I hope you would agree?
I have heard it repeatedly suggested that Aikido is different from other MA because it is entirely unreliant upon strength.. I think that is not an entirely informed viewpoint though I can understand how it is easy to arrive at that conclusion based [as I have heard and read] upon Youtubes of amazingly proficient old geezers with beards. I might suggest that those old geezers perhaps apply their own strength much more efficiently through techniques that have disavowed the extraneous and begin to approach a kind of technical purity ...Or maybe they just employ highly acrobatic ukes.. I am not exactly certain

Either way, I like those old geezers on Youtube.. Morehei whatshisface and that other guy who I've forgot haha..
I would say that technique is of primary importance and but a measure of strength [in proportion to the practitioner] is requisite. I would suggest further that the same idea applies in all MA and fighting sports.
Janna x