[nine_k]

Roman Empire, or Genghis Khan, or Nazi Germany did not have a "conflict" with neighbors, some kind of quarrel that can end in a compromise. They had a desire to conquer, subdue, and consume the neighbors. There could be no resolution beside a complete capitulation and becoming annexed.

Russia is currently acting in this mode. There can be no "resolution", only a devastating military defeat of one of the sides.

[graemep]

Empires have often grown without any desire to grow. Quite often empires have grown by moving against a threat close to its borders or trade routes and ends up in control of new areas, which then become part of its territories, which are then threatened....

Expansion is not uncontroversial either. The Roman Empire had periods of a non-expansionist policy, and the British Empire in the 19th century had a fairly popular Little Englander movement that opposed expansion of the empire.

[esarbe]

The desire to grow is simply hidden behind the supposedly defensive posture of wanting to have a peaceful "buffer zone".

[khazhoux]

Why are you trying to redefine a word? My most low-effort refutal is simply to consult Webster’s Dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict

> Definition #1: : Fight, battle, war

So, having proved my point, I’ll note that (1) this war could certainly end in compromise, and (2) even a devastating military defeat would be a resolution.

And I’ll appreciate not being called an invasion-sympathizer when I’m only pointing out that using the word “conflict” is not a political statement.

[nine_k]

My intention was not to redefine the word, but to merely offer my opinion that this war is very unlikely to end with any kind of resolution, other than a complete defeat of one of the sides. This conflict is not like e.g. Soviet-Finnish war of 1940, when USSR annexed 10% of Finland and hostilities stopped. It's more like the Napoleonic wars on early 19th century, when Napoleon would not stop attacking, no matter how much land he had already conquered, until a comprehensive and total military defeat.

Of course things could become different if the current Russian leader dies, or is deposed.

[esarbe]

I guess a robbery can be called a conflict too.

[jajko]

This, so much this. Even many smart folks don't realize this, or refuse to acknowledge since its pretty bleak viewpoint with no bright future. This war won't end just because its getting annoying, or sad, or shocking whats happening.

Russia switched fully to war economy, on purpose, there is no easy way back even if they wanted. Their goal is to conquer as much Europe as possible, losing few millions of its sub-citizens from rural remote regions is not such a concern that we in the west think about. Nobody there cares. Their enemy is whole western world, doesn't matter how much trump licks putin's a*, not a zilch.

In fact, I strongly believe that almost nobody in the west fully understands how depraved and primitive russian thinking is, think about white heroin addicted trash or common slums folks, and spread it on the level of largest nation in the world and give them huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. On top is good old mafia (and I don't mean Coppola's idealized version, I mean real murder-whole-family-in-acid-vat type), nothing more.

Now what good do you expect from that, now or in 10 years? Whatever you do, you are naive.

[4ggr0]

> how depraved and primitive russian thinking is, think about white heroin addicted trash or common slums folks, [...] and give them huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

:s/russian/american/

can we not label whole nationalities as depraved, primitive heroin addicted trash!?!