For some of us at some times in our lives, having a relationship with two people is less work. It requires much more communication, better scheduling, and much more attention to your partners' feelings ... but that might be a good investment of time anyhow, and often gets overlooked.
I find that having multiple partners helps me appreciate each partner much more, for themselves -- it's easy to mix up how much you love just having a partner and being loved, with how you actually feel about that person. Poly gives you the distance and contrast to see your partners clearly, and that can be really special.
Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It's not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.
I've been in poly relationships most of my adult life, around 15 years now. I'm certainly familiar with the type of relationship you describe, but the long term, stable poly relationships are the ones that have been poly from the get go.
I don't tend to date people who are "opening things up" in a previously monogamous relationship, because being someone's learning experience is a bummer.
I've been in poly relationships for years. They work really well for me and my significant others, but we are pretty discreet about it because folks tend to be huge assholes about it.
Generally, you don't see the poly relationships that work great; mostly, people see the type of scenario one of your other commenters described because the stable relationships are less visible.
I know, I was being humorous but it is in fact the way most categorization works. Very seldom is it a taxonomy; the way we recognize faces, voices, shapes, etc ... it's all probabilistic.
So teeeeechnically, a salad is a dish composed of mixed ingredients. You could make the argument that you mix any two set of chopped ingredients and bingo bongo, it's a salad.
However, I like to think that dishes' ingredients aren't a taxonomic thing, they're a probabilistic thing. In other words, there's no such thing as "not salad" or "salad", only shades of saladness.
Serve it cold? Ok it's saladier
It's made up of chopped ingredients? Saladier still
Those ingredients are mostly vegetables? Getting pretty saladish
They're mixed together? Even more salad like
They've got some sort of dressing mixed in? Now it's very likely a salad!
... and so on. To me, your SO'a dish has a pretty high Salad Probability^tm
Like every ceasefire.
Probably the reason Ukraine doesn't want a ceasefire...
Yeah, unironically it does in this instance.
The US negotiated with the Japanese.
The allies negotiated with the Nazis.
You know both these groups surrendered unconditionally, right?
He tears them to pieces and then thinks I'll throw every single piece. He'll fetch that little fragment of a ball endlessly
I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they'll eventually lose, it's better for everyone if they give up quickly ... then this historical example doesn't seem relevant.
Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I'm sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it's necessary to fight this one out.
Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I'll admit it's a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn't terribly relevant.