Resolution is a loaded word.
Typically, we want conflicts, disagreements, “differences of opinion,” and other ways that we frame the dialogue of conflict, to work out in ways that work for us.
Ways that allow us to accomplish our goals in the most expedient manner possible, and the other party—well they can worry about themselves.
In this context, resolution becomes a chimera, something wildly implausible (according to our narrow definition of what is plausible) and that we chase without really planning on catching.
In this context, resolution must take on a new meaning, focused on cessation of conflict, moving toward peace, and engaging to get to reconciliation.
In this context, failure becomes an option, when it is failure to get resolution in the face of success at gaining other outcomes that might be more important to the parties involved.
Strategically allow failure to occur in the process of getting to resolution, has to be a tactical choice, rather than a passive act (or at worse, a default position of manipulation to attempt to ensure future success) because it involves leveraging the trust and faith of both parties in the process of resolution, rather than in each other.
And when the process gets to be more important than the parties, resolution becomes easier to attain rather than harder.