LEGAL BASIS OF LEADERSHIP AND AGGRESSION STRATEGYOLOGYES: THE CONCEPT OF STATE-CREATING PATRIOTISM OF NATION IN PEACE AND WAR TIMES

It is synthesized that leadership is a power-management skill to feel the need and influence other members of society (individuals, community, unit, collective, state or group of states); to be more effective in the eyes of others, due to his persuasive ability to influence them in order to implement management decisions initiated by him. At the same time, the leadership strategyology is brought to the development and implementation of a specific program, plan or strategy for achieving success in leadership activities, that is, ensuring through it the effectiveness of the management decisions made in the legal field. It is highlighted that aggressiveness is a situational (explosive) state characterized by affective exacerbations (i. e. outbursts of anger, malice) and manifests itself through impulsive behavior that is directed at the object that caused it or concerns it. It is substantiated that a common legal feature of the strategyologyes of leadership and aggressiveness from the concept of state-creating patriotism of nation in the conditions of martial law is a significant emphasis on increasing the patriotism of the nation through the activation of a sense of unity, pride for one's country and the desire to protect its interests, even on the battlefield. Both strategologyes also condition the mobilization of diverse resources and the unity of the nation (support of the authorities, volunteer activities, service and joint efforts to protect the state). It has been proven that a fundamental contradiction of globalization processes, which is practically not paid attention to, is the rise to the first positions in the state-building of the ideology of aggressiveness and its threatening concentration under the influence of market transformations. It was highlighted that earlier this aggressiveness was noticeably restrained by distances and time spaces, but now, due to the rapid acceleration of the pace of scientific and technical progress and communication links, it is becoming an increasingly active and destructive force, reinforced by military colors and violence. Provided that such aggressiveness becomes the defining policy of supranational entities and transnational companies, then the prospect of economic growth for less developed states is lost. It is well-founded that aggression can aggregate and lead to financially burdensome and undesirable consequences, especially in the era of the race for technological advantages and the production of super-weapons. It is noted that the legal differences in the motivational mechanism of these strategologyes are goals and objectives. In particular, in the strategology of leadership, the main goal can be the maintenance of peace, stability and cooperation in the international society, while in the strategology of aggression, the goals can be aimed at expanding power, territory or achieving specific political benefits. In addition, the strategology of aggression uses aggressive military means and methods, including war and aggression, while the strategology of leadership emphasizes diplomacy, cooperation, and peaceful means of achieving goals.