Despite the upheavals induced by the advent of the atomic bomb in the area of conventional warfare, still few people actually realize that military strategy has acquired a dimension and a scale that exceed by far the confined framework of war itself.

Military strategy, mostly since the existence of dissuasion, is no longer satisfied with the real as a place of action. Much of its relevance in today’s world is its ability to create events in the virtual world. It is therefore quite natural to see some strategists place the framework of their reflections in the concept of mental strategy.

It is in this new mental space that it is possible to effectively interpret the role of geostrategy but also to define topostrategy. The mental dimension of military strategy which allows it to work in the noosphere, is very little visible on the tactical and operational levels. Nevertheless we must not see anything wrong with that since these levels are inferior to the one of strategy and incomparable versus grand strategy. Without this meaning that the mental dimension is absent at these levels.

The easiest way to understand this reality is to examine it via negotiations which represent a tool capable of positioning itself in a transversal manner. In this framework, it is quite clear that the role of the invisible is quite clear. And this can range from a simple collision between two aircrafts, between two vessels, up to two fleets and finally to states in treaties and conventions. It is equally clear from the formal point of view that game theory demonstrates de facto this dimension since the impossibility of knowing the exact positioning of the other, leads us not to choices but to estimates of choice which have the natural tendency to create not only a mental model but a genuine mental theory.

Thus the mental dimension exists indeed, and this on several levels so the totality of its repercussions in the area of military strategy should not surprise us. It is furthermore necessary to emphasize on the fact that this dimension offers more possibilities in apprehending the hybrid states of war-peace that we simply call crises. Because it is under this carry-all name that we hide the border impact problems which must be resolved in a global way.