KOREAN SETTLEMENT AND RUSSIAN INTERESTS. Edited by V. I. Denisov and A. Z. Zhebin, Moscow: IDV RAS, NP Publishing House "Russian Panorama", 2008. 344 p.

The Korean Peninsula is often and rightly called the nerve node of East Asia. The interests of the four great powers, the United States, China, Russia, and Japan, which largely do not coincide with each other, intersect here; here, even after the end of the cold war, a high degree of conflict persists, in which the phases of attenuation alternate with periods of its sharp aggravation; here, on both sides of the 38th parallel, which divides the peninsula into two ideologically There is the highest concentration of armed forces in the world, looking at each other through the crosshairs.

The Korean problem has become a modern "Gordian knot", where the unresolved problems of the historical past, the contradictions between the two Korean states, and the powerful multi-vector influence of the international factor are intertwined, determined by a wide mosaic of sometimes overlapping, but often not coinciding interests and actions of leading players on the Korean field. The crisis situation on the Korean Peninsula, among the fundamental causes of which, as a rule, unsettled relations between the United States and the DPRK are singled out, has "enriched" in recent years with a new very dangerous dimension - nuclear.

Many outwardly attractive foreign concepts have failed when they come into contact with the North Korean phenomenon. The latter are presented in a wide range from recipes and attempts to forcefully (sometimes directly by military force, sometimes by economic isolation, international financial strangulation, etc.) remove the DPRK from the world map in its current form to efforts to engage Pyongyang's contribution to constructive diplomatic dialogue and regional economic cooperation. Faced with these realities, almost all (to a lesser extent, this statement applies to the PRC) of the main external participants in the Korean settlement were forced to radically change their vision of local problems and approaches to their solution. Over the past 20 years, the metamorphosis of the "North Korean policy" has been particularly evident in the foreign policy practices of the United States and South Korea.

The democratic administration of B. Clinton began with a powerful military pressure on Pyongyang, was on the verge of launching a large-scale military operation, but after passing through "its" first nuclear crisis of 1993-1994, it switched to a policy of constructive dialogue. The "Framework Agreement" signed by Washington in October 1994 with the DPRK ensured relative stability on the peninsula for eight years. The Republican Bush administration that succeeded it essentially repeated the same trajectory from including the DPRK in the "axis of evil" and openly seeking regime change in the period 2001-2006 to intensive interaction aimed at developing a compromise solution on the path of gradual normalization of bilateral relations in 2007-2008.

One of the major obstacles to the Korean settlement was the discrepancy in the phases of the "doves" and "hawks" in power in Washington and Seoul. When the Clinton administration pursued a policy of "engaging" the DPRK, the Kim Yong-Sama administration in Seoul brought inter-Korean relations to a standstill. When the "sunshine" policy of Kim Yong-sam's successor, Kim Dae-jung, and his successor, Roh Moo-hyun, began to bear real fruit, the neocons triumphed in Washington, convinced of the need for regime change in the DPRK, which, they say, is in itself more dangerous than even its nuclear weapons. When, convinced of the futility of forceful pressure on Pyongyang (and due to a number of other factors, including domestic political ones), the Bush administration turned 180 degrees and began to force a cooperative approach, conservative forces came to the leadership of the Republic of Korea (January 2008), led by current President Lee Myung-bak, who we have once again pushed back inter-Korean cooperation.

In this context, Russia is no exception. Its Korean policies of the 1990s and the first for almost a decade of the current century are essentially antipodes.

Colleagues from the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences tried to comprehend this complex tangle of problems and contradictions associated with the process of resolving the Korean problem, consider it in historical retrospect and modern dynamics, and look into the possible future of its development. Such an attempt, I think, was equally timely, as well as very thorough and useful.

The authors tried to study the above-mentioned and other aspects of the problem on the basis of an integrated approach, the components of which were the analysis of the historical heritage, starting with the emergence of the Korean problem in 1945, its complex, sometimes dramatic evolution up to 2008. The article is divided into separate sections and examines in detail the conceptual approaches and practical actions of all major players - the United States, Japan, China, and Russia-as well as the specifics of the development of inter-Korean relations.

The nuclear aspect of the Korean problem rightfully attracted the attention of the study participants. Chapter 10 is entirely devoted to the study of the genesis of the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula, the complex twists and turns of its development, and the relationship between influence and interaction

internal and external factors, prospects for a settlement, and Russia's important role in this process.

The absolute advantage of the monograph is that as part of the search for ways of political settlement, a complex of issues related to the economic interests of all participants, the state and prospects of trade and economic relations between the DPRK and the ROK with the leading participants in the Korean settlement in the context of globalization has received in-depth study. In other words, a highly professional analysis of the close connection and mutual influence of politics and economy in the specific conditions of the Korean Peninsula was carried out.

It is extremely important and completely justified that the central place in the study was taken by a close study of Russia's policy both in the sphere of bilateral relations with the DPRK and the ROK, and in the framework of multilateral efforts to resolve the Korean problem, including in the format of the six-party talks in Beijing. The authors very convincingly justified the concept of" balance of interests " on the Korean Peninsula as an optimal model of Russian policy, and suggested options for Moscow's possible actions in the foreseeable future that deserve serious attention.

The book attracts attention for its thoroughness and high content of factual material. The app contains a selection of texts of bilateral and multilateral treaties, agreements, declarations, UN Security Council resolutions, etc., which will certainly be an important source of documentary information for the reader.

However, it is in the area of a specific invoice that inaccuracies are occasionally found. Thus, in the section on the liberation of Korea by the USSR armed forces, during which the main combat operations were conducted by the 25th Army, the losses of the Soviet Army in killed and wounded are estimated as "more than five thousand soldiers and officers" (p. 16). This figure is probably correct in relation to the total number of human casualties, taking into account the losses of the 25th Army during the entire Far Eastern campaign of August 1945, including its military operations in Manchuria in the process of advancing to the territory of Korea, even before entering the Korean land proper. According to the updated data of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, the total losses of the Soviet Army in Korea amounted to 1,963 people (the classification of secrecy was removed. Losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR in wars, military operations and military conflicts. Statistical research / Edited by G. F. Krivosheev, Moscow: Voenizdat Publ., 1993, p. 325).

However, it is obvious that such individual controversial issues do not affect the overall attractiveness and undoubted value of the study under consideration.

It seems that the dry words of the annotation to the book, that "the study is intended for students, postgraduates, teachers, researchers and practitioners, all those who are interested in the Korean issue and NEA issues", are quite justified.

Permanent link to this publication: