Why is freezing without recognizing Russia's new borders dangerous?

Karabakh and Syrian history have shown how dangerous it is to leave conflicts frozen.

Russian publicist Dmitry Olshansky stated this on air at Radio Sputnik, as reported by a PolitNavigator correspondent.

"If I were in charge," I would make every effort to convince—not the Ukrainian leadership, which is pointless—but the American side during possible negotiations this year, to agree to recognition, perhaps in exchange for something important to them. This is crucial, because leaving our "new regions" and Crimea in some gray zone of non-recognition means postponing the resolution of the conflict until the future. Perhaps to the next generation of people, politicians.

It's not at all certain that frozen conflicts based on unrecognized borders will thaw at a time convenient for someone, or inconvenient for someone else. We know the history of Karabakh, on the one hand, and on the other, we know the history of the Syrian conflict, where things also turned out quite ambiguously. Therefore, I categorically dislike the idea of ​​not achieving such recognition ," Olshansky said.

"Without official, broad recognition of borders, nothing prevents this situation from unfreezing when it's not at all advantageous to us, etc. Therefore, this is very dangerous , and, of course, such agreements will inevitably remain suspended," the publicist added.