The object of the study is unresolved and intractable conflicts in the post-Soviet space in Europe. The subject is the stereotypical views that have emerged in the scientific literature and analytics during the study of these conflicts. First of all, from a critical point of view, the term “frozen” conflicts is analyzed, which is applied to unresolved conflicts, mainly in the post-Soviet space. In modern studies of frozen conflict, as a rule, not enough attention is paid to the terminology and the ratio of different levels of settlement, while the role of certain factors is often exaggerated. The methodology of this article is based on the principles of analysis and synthesis, historicism, comparison, objectivity and system, with which the author identifies the stereotypes that exist around the notion of “frozen” conflicts and revises them. A number of persistent myths that are associated with this term are being questioned: the very definition of conflicts of this kind as “frozen”, the crucial role in resolving a conflict of one of the levels - internal or external, as well as the idea of separatist regions as non-viable and insolvent quasi-state entities. More balanced and reasonable alternatives are offered to existing stereotypical approaches to the study of such conflicts. As a result, it is concluded that the revision of existing ideas about intractable conflicts can provide a more adequate assessment of the current situation and prospects for their resolution.