The relevance of the research topic is determined by the severity of the problem of the Korean crisis, which has not been resolved for more than several decades, and the need to determine the possible consequences of increased tension on the Korean peninsula. The general crisis of relations between the two countries on the Korean peninsula is becoming deeper and more intractable. Political tensions between Pyongyang and Seoul periodically take on an extremely dangerous character. All this is happening against the general background of the complication of the situation in Northeast Asia. Territorial disputes are escalating (China − Japan, South Korea − Japan, South Korea − China). The growing tension between the States of Central and East Asia distracts them from the search for mutually acceptable solutions to the Korean problem, the political settlement of which is today one of the main priorities not only of the countries of the region, but also of the entire international community. The greatest concern in this conflict is caused by North Korea, because of its nuclear weapons and constant threats in their use. The need to ensure the international regime of non–proliferation of nuclear weapons, the hypothetical possession of which is possessed by the North Korean state - the DPRK, very acutely raises the question of security in the region of the Korean peninsula. It is the unresolved problem of the division of the Korean nation, as well as the peculiarity of the geopolitical position of the peninsula, that causes increased international interest in Korean affairs, clashing the interests of many states that have their own interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Mainly, here we can talk about countries such as China, Russia, the USA and Japan. This, in turn, generates more and more new elements of the Korean node. Therefore, not only South Korea, but also most of the world community, are interested in freeing the North from weapons of mass destruction and establishing a zone of solid security in this area, relations of genuine good-neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Speaking generally about the international aspects of the Korean settlement, they are primarily due to the same high interest of the above-listed countries in strengthening their positions in this strategic region. China, while maintaining close trade and economic ties with South Korea, remains the only country with a military-political agreement with the North. Japan retains traditional and new contradictions with Seoul, at the same time, relations with North Korea have not yet been settled. This is due to the general fear of the Japanese of North Korean missiles, emotions about the abducted compatriots. Therefore, the Japanese government stands for tightening its policy towards Pyongyang. For the Republic of Korea, the main ally remains the United States, which provides them with a "nuclear umbrella". It turns out that the United States is increasingly considering this country, and the entire Korean peninsula, through the prism of strategic rivalry with China in the XXI century. All these countries support the return of the North Korean Republic to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, we are not talking about the reunification of the two countries. China and Japan, for various reasons, are interested in preserving the situation of two states on the peninsula. Beijing advocates the reform of North Korea on the Chinese model and puts pressure on Pyongyang in nuclear affairs. Tokyo, in words, in solidarity with the pressure policy of the United States, in fact seriously fears that any military action against the DPRK could have serious consequences for the territory of Japan.

In general, the Korean problem is complex for many countries, but it should be borne in mind that each of these countries defends its national interests. As a result, it is difficult to talk about a general settlement of the Korean issue. Such subjectivism complicates the search for objective truth and complicates the process of crisis resolution. Therefore, the purpose of this forecast is to analyze the causes and factors that caused the Korean crisis, its current state, as well as the possible future in the region in the next 30 years. Based on the formulated goal, tasks are formed. First of all, the prerequisites, causes and main stages of the Korean crisis are studied, the current strategic situation on the Korean peninsula is also investigated, and finally, a forecast of possible crisis scenarios in the coming decades is given.

The origins of the Korean conflict should be sought in the period of the occupation of Korea by Japan, which began at the beginning of the XX century, and ended only after the end of the Second World War. At that time, the allied powers began to destroy the Japanese Empire, so it was forced, under pressure exerted by the USSR and the United States, to withdraw its troops from the territory of the Korean peninsula. Thus, the fate of Korea became a card played between the United States and the Soviet Republic. The former World War II allies did not trust each other. As a result, in 1948, in order to limit each other's influence, these countries decided to divide their spheres of activity on the peninsula, marking the territorial boundaries of their interests. The result was the creation of two separate Korean nations separated by a border at the 38th parallel - the line of latitude crossing the peninsula. North Korea became a socialist state led by Kim Il Sung with the support of the USSR, and South Korea became a capitalist state led by Lee Seung—man, with the support of the United States.

At the moment, the Korean issue is one of the most important events, since these two countries are still at war. Both sides claim the entire territory of the peninsula. There is still high political and military tension between the States, which can lead to a serious military conflict.

The current situation on the Korean peninsula with the escalation of tensions has a negative impact on the political and economic development of both countries. This problem still poses serious risks for the regional and international community. Over the past few years, tensions on the peninsula have been rapidly increasing due to the different degrees of openness to the international community of the two countries. While the north side maintains a position of unwillingness to build trusting relations with other countries, the south, on the contrary, strives for international cooperation. Thus, military exercises involving South Korea, the United States and Japan are met with strong displeasure from North Korea, which continues various armed provocations. In particular, the crisis situation reaches such a dangerous level when there are even military skirmishes between the formations of North and South Korea. The actions of attempts to heat up relations between North Korea and South Korea show the obsolescence of the inter-Korean military agreement adopted in September 2018. In accordance with this agreement, concluded during high-level diplomatic talks between the leaders, the two Koreas decided to create buffer zones on both sides of the maritime border and stop all live firing and naval maneuvers in these zones. The goal was to completely suspend all hostile military activity along the inter-Korean border. However, recent events seem to be moving in the opposite direction. South Korea accuses the North of violating the military agreement due to artillery shelling, saying that the fate of the deal depends on North Korea.

In this case, it can be concluded that in the event of termination of the agreement, it is very likely that the already tense military situation on the peninsula will worsen even more and turn the inter-Korean border into an unstable zone. This, in turn, may lead to the fact that accidental clashes will mark the beginning of a potentially total military confrontation between the two Korean states. Such a scenario will not benefit either the North, the South, or the region as a whole. Warning shots can end in the death of people, a rocket can misfire, a ship can be accidentally sunk, a rocket can accidentally hit a populated area. Thus, there is a possibility that distrust will develop into a miscalculation and the beginning of a full-fledged war. And because, as already described, other countries have interests in Korea, this will lead to an increase in the conflict to a global level, when external forces will be forced to intervene in the conflict. All this will eventually lead to the beginning of a major military catastrophe, which will have consequences for the entire world community.

Although North Korea has indeed conducted numerous military provocations in response to joint military exercises involving the United States, South Korea and Japan, the latter have also allowed tensions to rise by resuming joint exercises. Such a policy is not conducive to containing North Korea or creating a safer environment in Northeast Asia. Instead of having a deterrent effect on Pyongyang, such behavior only gives it new reasons to continue military provocations. In this vicious circle of "an eye for an eye" it is difficult to find a peaceful way out.

In connection with all of the above, it is impossible to say clearly whether South Korea will adhere to the 2018 agreement and refrain from further military actions with North Korea. It is also necessary to take seriously the latest statements of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, in September 2022, about the "irreversible" nature of the country's nuclear status. Therefore, unrealistic expectations should not be maintained about North Korea's desire to improve relations while maintaining old strategies. They will not lead to the desired result, i.e. If the two Koreas remain in this cycle of escalation, nothing good will come of it. North Korea's rhetoric and military show of force have made it clear that the country is not easily deterred by words, threats, military exercises or sanctions.

In the southern part of the peninsula, according to surveys conducted by their state research institutes in 2018-2019, skepticism is also increasing about the possibility of stable relations and a joint future, without the absence of tension between the parties. In the Republic of Korea, it is rather expected that in the future the differences between states will only increase. It is noted that the desired easy reunification, as it was seen before, is currently impossible, due to the presence of too much difference between the political, ideological and economic conditions of the two countries. And attempts at unification are fraught with the emergence of a new civil conflict. The contrast of the modern trajectories of North and South Korea shows that the concept of "Korea as a whole" is outdated, and does not contain such great opportunities as before. As the process of inter-Korean negotiations shows, the plan, if not for reunification, then reconciliation of the countries, seems quite feasible. In case of successful negotiations on the peace process, the outcome may be the possibility of achieving a peace-building process on the Korean peninsula. But the fact is that against the background of the current situation on risk mitigation on the Korean peninsula, each of the interested parties is becoming more and more prudent, acting in their own interests. One cannot make frivolous assumptions about whether the risk of the Korean peninsula, which has remained unchanged for decades, will really be solved, whether North Korea will really change, what kind of future the United States and surrounding countries see for North Korea. The influence of external actors in this region is still strong, and it greatly affects possible future scenarios.

Although the rapid escalation of tensions around the Korean peninsula does not exclude any solutions, even by force. The real threat in the form of the DPRK's nuclear program serves as a catalyst for intensifying international diplomatic efforts to eliminate the fundamental contradictions of this difficult situation. In particular, there is a strong desire to prevent this problem from reaching the level of threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, it is assumed that in the coming decade, the Republic of Korea and its supporters will continue their policy, focusing not on military actions, but on an objective and realistic reassessment of North Korea's current strategy and a return to diplomacy and dialogue. Since the disappointment from the efforts of recent years cannot serve as an excuse not to continue trying to build a full-fledged dialogue.

In conclusion, it can be noted that the settlement of the Korean crisis is possible only through a phased solution of bilateral (DPRK - ROK) and international aspects, parallel progress along different ways of settlement, ensuring the closest possible international cooperation.

Since the Korean War and throughout the post-Cold War period, North Korea has consistently promoted two policies: "the path to economic independence" and "the path to political and military autonomy and self-defense." In addition, its political and military policy can be characterized as aimed at maintaining a "totalitarian system of governance" and ensuring the security of the regime with the help of military influence (the development of a nuclear program). However, it is precisely this nature of North Korean policy that has been recognized by the international community as an external security threat. And not only for Northeast Asia, including Japan and South Korea, but also for the United States, Russia and China.

Thus, the international community comes to a consensus that North Korea's independent self-defense system poses a threat to the Korean peninsula. Consequently, external actors are also involved in the crisis on the Korean peninsula, who are afraid of the intensity of relations in this territory. Therefore, at present, and as follows from the analysis, in the coming decades, the main requirements for North Korea will remain the "reform and opening up" of their economic policy, as well as "denuclearization". South Korea may continue to try to expand good-neighborly and friendly relations with the North Korean nation, trying to do everything possible to prevent the crisis from turning into an armed conflict. North Korea's policy will be aimed at a possible compromise between the regime's security and the denuclearization demanded by the international community. To this was added the fact that after China fully joined the sanctions against North Korea, banning the import of minerals, coal, seafood, clothing, etc. D., North Korea should strive to avoid the possibility of an economic crisis in the near future.

South Korea is expected to establish humanitarian, cultural and sports exchanges with regard to North Korea. The United States and Japan are likely to continue the policy of imposing sanctions. Other countries also follow the UN Security Council resolution on sanctions against North Korea, and it is possible to introduce full-fledged trade controls. Individual sanctions against North Korea will depend on which path bilateral relations with Pyongyang will take. Speaking of the United States, the lifting of their sanctions against North Korea will happen only if its complete denuclearization is confirmed, and after other previously voiced problems, including humanitarian issues, are considered. It is also important for Japan to settle special issues, such as the settlement of territorial disputes within the historical framework of post-war decisions, and the problem of the abduction of Japanese fishermen by North Korean soldiers. Neither China nor Russia imposed their own sanctions, but implemented the UN Security Council resolution on sanctions. But the Chinese and Russian governments are calling for an easing of UN sanctions. The Republic of Korea, on the other hand, cannot commit itself to lifting sanctions in order to meet the requirements of the international community. However, public opinion inside the country is moving towards lifting its own sanctions and reviving inter-Korean economic exchanges.

Thus, it is believed that improving relations between South and North Korea still faces numerous obstacles. And without resolving these issues, normalization of relations will be difficult. Whether relations will develop will depend on the course of negotiations between South and North Korea. If North Korea can agree on the issue of giving up its nuclear weapons, if the negotiation process becomes more active, and the line of policies is clearer, and, moreover, if both countries can work on a mutual confidence-building measure, such as ending the war, it will be possible to talk about resolving the crisis on the Korean peninsula. However, it should be borne in mind that the complete denuclearization of the DPRK is impossible in the near future, since Pyongyang is not ready to completely abandon nuclear weapons that guarantee the existence of this state. Therefore, it is important that in the coming decades, North Korea removes the concerns of the international community and works to change its policy. Then, in the end, the tension in the region will finally be eased, which will lead to the expansion of ties and more successful development of the trade and economic sector in the Asia-Pacific region.

The list of sources used.

Gerchikov O. Korean syndrome. About the Korean War of 1950-1953, which divided Korea into two states // Arguments and Facts. - 2005. – No. 27. – pp. 14-30.
Evdokimova T.V. The experience of German unification and its acceptability for Korea // Korean studies in Russia: direction and development. – 2022. – № 3(3). – Pp. 101-108.
Ivanov K.V. Historical problems of Korea in the period of 1905-1945 and their modern legacy: colonial modernization, assimilation of Koreans and the problem of Japanese figures. – Irkutsk, 2014. – 26 p.
Machulenko V.A., Novoselov D.I. About the current geostrategic situation on the Korean peninsula // Globus: Technical Sciences. – 2022. – № 1(42). – Pp. 7-11.
Molosova D.O. Features of relations between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (political, cultural and informational aspects) // Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. – 2017. – 176 p.
Petukhova A.A. The Korean question in the modern system of international relations // Ural State Pedagogical University. – 2018. – 91 p.
Ayhan K.J. Rethinking Soft Power with Alternative Explanations: Appealing to Fear, Appetite or Spirit // Korean Political Science Association Annual Spring Conference. – Seoul, 2020. – P. 988–989.
Bluth C. Crisis on the Korean Peninsula // Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, 2011. – 252 p.
Blair C. The Forgotten War, America in Korea 1950–1953. – New York, 1987. – P. 44-67.
Choo J.W. South Korean Politics and foreign policy in 2017 and 2018 // East Asian Policy. – 2018. – № 10(1). – P. 123–134.
Cohen Z., Browne R., Gaouette N., Lee T. Trump on North Korean missile launch: ‘We will take care of it’ // CNN, 2017. [electronic resource]. Access mode: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html (accessed: 11/21/2022).
Five Scenarios for the Korean Peninsula // Japan Center for Economic Research, “Asia Research” Report. – 2017. – P. 1-10.
Korean Peninsula: Tracking the Situation // The United States Institute of Peace, 2012. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://www.usip.org/countries-continents/korean-peninsula/current-situation – Title from the screen (accessed 11/21/2022).
Lee C.W. Future Outlook for the Korean Peninsula Situation // Japan Spotlight. – 2018. – No. 4. – P. 49-53.
Mason R., Ohn D.W., Kim J.H., Park J.J. Be careful what you wish for: Security challenges facing the Korean Peninsula during a potential unification process // Asian Security. – 2017. – № 14(3). – P. 263–281.

Moon J.I. Address by President Moon Jae-in at 75th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, 2020. [electronic resource]. Access mode: https://english1.president.go.kr/BriefingSpeeches/Speeches/881 (accessed: 11/20/2022).
Remarks by Stephen Biegun, deputy secretary of state about the future of the United States and the Korean Peninsula // Asan Institute. – Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2020. [electronic resource]. – Access mode: https://kr.usembassy.gov/121120-the-future-of-the-united-states-and-the-korean-peninsula / – Title from the screen (accessed 19.11.2022).
Richey M., Panda J.P., Tizzard D.A. The Future of the Korean Peninsula: Korea 2032 and Beyond // Routledge. – 2021. – 304 p.
Tara O. The Collapse of North Korea. Challenges, Planning and Geopolitics of Unification // Palgrave Macmillan UK. – 2016. – 168 p.
최규재. 이:: 국민들, 북한문제 본격 이 ( (Choi Kyuzha. Lee Jong-seok's continuous analytical interview: along with the solution of the North Korean problem, the question of unification will arise) // Weekly Seoul, 2010. [electronic resource]. Access mode: http://webcache .googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jV0hnz4dHR4J:www.weeklyseoul.net/news/articleView.html%3Fidxno%3D18331&cd=1&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru (accessed: 11/20/2022).
백지수. 15만 北 北 "우리 민족 함께 살아야 한다" (Baek Zhisu. President Moon Jae-in's speech to 150,000 North Koreans: "We must live together as a nation") // Money Today, 2018. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2018091922457661983 (accessed: 11/26/2022).
정시구. 북한의 '후견*피후견국가관계‘ 역사로본남북통일고찰 (Chong Shigu. The North Korean study of the unification of North and South Korea from the history of "the relations of the country of guardianship and guardianship") // 한국행정사학회 (Journal of Korean Administrative History). – 2020. – No. 48. – pp. 99-128.