The study of the Aegean Sea is complicated by nature, not only because diplomacy has inadequacy problems due to the lack of knowledge in the fields of geometry and topology but also because it assumes that the language of negotiation is capable of withstanding the isomorphism of the picture. The structure transference is not an uncomplicated methodology even if the process is automatic in a mathematical framework.
The general problem is that the diplomat, due to his studies, is having difficulties in grasping a serious and robust picture of reality, constituted of 3000 islands. He is not prepared to protect them because in essence he is not familiar with their structure. He is trying of course to create a model of the Aegean Sea, only this is just a simulation of a sea shore. The strategic problem of this sea shore, if it actually existed, would be in the difficulty of protecting it, which it would not only be great but unimaginable.
The entity of the Aegean Sea, topologically, is more related to Cantor’s set than to a degenerated terrestrial form. Moreover, it cannot be modeled only with a few big islands, as it is observed in diplomacy. Therefore, we have neither the equivalent of Armenia with the land, nor the equivalent of Italy with Sicily. Whether we want it or not, things are more complex and indeed for this reason the Aegean Sea is one of the most robust areas of Greece. In order to comprehend this more effectively there is a tool, which combines geometry and topology, this is the Voronoi diagrams. Their application in the Aegean Sea allows us to easily locate the attributes of our islands. Without examining national waters, it is possible via these diagrams, to give an objective picture of the basins of attraction and the attractors which the Aegean islands constitute. In this way we create cells, capable of producing not only one map in the traditional sense, but an actual atlas in the group theory sense.
This picture which exists and which is not obtained by the diplomat who is used to operate with the words of treaties and conventions and where maps are de facto not official, it cannot be of help to him/her, not even for promoting issues which are considered obvious and self-evident. In diplomacy, in a historical context, maps have shaped truths. Nobody has ever played with reality, the whole reality of the map is the planning of diplomacy. Therefore no diplomat trusts the maps because they know who created them and for what reason. However, reality has changed.
From now on we have at our disposal satellite pictures and the creation of a map is an automated procedure. The expertise to construct dynamic maps exists. It is henceforth possible to do whatever we want to, we just need to know what we want. In mental strategy the Aegean Sea is not a Maginot line. It has proved, via history, its capability of protecting Greece. This does not mean though that someone necessarily exists to protect it. And this is the problem. Even the shield must be protected in the supporting sense. If the Aegean Sea receives diplomatic attacks it is not a coincidence. And these attacks are not of the same type as in Thrace. If we do not realize it and we continue this diplomatic game without effective tools, then repercussions in the unfair game, in the game theory sense, will occur. Without strategy, there is the framework of the destruction of the player. And this will not only be a prediction of the theory but the reality.