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.

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.

I guess a robbery can be called a conflict too.