Miloš Knežević

The author looks at several features of the relationship between large and small nations and states at the international level. Since this plan, among other things, can be understood as political, ie geopolitical, the author points to the continuous action of differences between the actors of international life. Viewed through the prism of theoretical realism, the theory of globalization, world order and critical geopolitics, the essence of these relations is recognized in contradictions. On that basis, the characteristics, disproportions, inequalities that mark the negative aspects of international relations are considered. The image of the world that is being formed in the currents of globalization indicates the continuity of the state of exploitation, domination, colonialism, imperialism and hegemony in postmdodern "neo" and "post" forms. In that sense, the author concludes that an optimal international national position requires a prudent interpretation of the real geopolitical position, skilful foreign policy and diplomacy, as well as the strengthening of defense and security potentials in the regional framework. In conclusion, the author points out that political practice needs to be aligned with the defined strategic goals of sovereignty and military neutrality, which presupposes the direction of movement towards the EU, but not NATO membership. Finally, in fact, first of all, Serbia must be patient and persistent in the efforts of reintegration of AP Kosovo and Metohija into its state composition.

The starting point of this paper emphasizes the need to understand the character and meaning of social, especially political conflicts. It is not enough to interpret the separate normative structures of law and politics; it is also necessary to bear in mind the conflicting processes that characterize them. Although the law contains political potentials and politics contain legal potentials, the two normative structures are not identical. In addition to being political, every state is also a legal entity. Political and legal needs and demands are often in contradictions that are mutually exclusive. Positive law and current politics can be in a harmonious and synergistic relationship, but also in a destructive conflict. The author further focuses on the material assumptions of physical geography and political processes. Political creations are manifested, built, lasted and decomposed in a spatial dimension. The dynamics of political phenomena occur in political processes that also occur in space. These spaces can be designated as political spaces of life. Spatial phenomena from the point of view of nature and society in a broad scientific context are covered by physical and social geography, and in the latter, anthropogenic geography, political, religious, cultural, historical geography and other disciplines. On the theoretical plane, the relationship between geography and politics is manifested in gepopolitics. In political science as a general science of politics, however, a suspicion towards geopolitics is noticeable. Тhe critics of geopolitics are based on prejudices from earlier times and doubts about its modern science and theorizing. The development of all types of studies of international and interstate relations has, in the meantime, weakened objections of this kind. From the heremeneutical point of view of critical geopolitics and conceptual political science, the author questions the possibilities of constructive adjustments to geopolitical heritage and theoretical innovations in a timely manner. Since geopolitical discourse in the course of globalization is constantly growing and developing, one of the rational solutions to the doubts, in the author's view, is the theoretical and disciplinary formation of geopolitical science.

The art of government almost always contains premises of competition and imposing and manipulation, and thus of politics as well. Negative and worth(less) type of elites and elitisation most often takes place in the area of direct politics. An aristocracy is a government of the minority of the best, whereas a democracy is a government of a majority, without substantial determination of its quality. In cases imbued with national elite and official, formal or state elite there are numerous congruencies in the common aspiration to establish a nation state in its democratic and European form. However paradoxical it may seem, neoliberal pro-democratism relies on the conceptual legacy of the left, first and foremost on its anarchist doctrine of the abolition of the state and the communist learning on dying of the state. Therefore, in the neoliberal grudge towards a strong state, some well-known components of anarcho-syndicalism, bolshevism, Leninism and Trotskyism can be distinguished. It is obvious that under counter indicated circumstances of pervading regressive and amoral political statuses of ochlocracy, kleptocracy, timocracy and mafiocracy, Serbian society in decline has great difficulty with its own elites. In correspondence between political theory and political practice of a society in transition, especially Serbian society in “passing” and “change”, there is an apparent gap between proclaimed ideals and non-idealized reality. Power is mostly won and obtained by those who do not gain it by means of their virtues, but by resourcefulness and skill. Democrators govern as pro-democrats, in the name and on behalf of ideals of democracy. Manipulated and “democratized” transitional mass, in the sad role of the loser of the transition, has replaced the oppressed working class that had disappeared from the political and economic scene in the vortex of deindustrialization and deagrarianisation of Serbia. The working class and middle class have actually merged into governable and impoverished transitional mass. During the process of massification subjects of transition have been turned into passive and depersonalized objects of the reforming “transition”. Many of those who wanted to pass into welfare have, in reality, been skillfully tricked!