The other side of this though is it leads to frozen conflicts that never resolve. The aggressor side can never take the land so the conqoured side has no incent

The other side of this though is it leads to frozen conflicts that never resolve. The aggressor side can never take the land so the conqoured side has no incentive to negotiate a peace as that can only diminish their position. (As a random example, take the golan heights in israel vs syria, its been in limbo for 57 years now and shows no sign of ever being resolved) I mean, i dont know if its worse for the conqouring side to just win the land, but having stuff stay in limbo for decades also seems counterproductive to healing conflicts and moving forward. closure can be beneficial even if its towards a result we don't want.