[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.