When we examine Ukraine topostrategically, we come across four regions which obtain key features.
The larger is a land field, whereas, the other three have access to the sea: one in a closed type of form, the next as a peninsula, and the last in an open way.
These differences are also associated with the geostrategic data.
Consequently the crisis in the peninsula, and the disputation in the closed field are not accidental.
Functionally they obtain the role of the fortification, and of the fortress at a besieging level.
It is therefore important for these differences, which make the difference to become prominent.
So if we were to now incorporate these data within the chronostrategic context, then we could observe that previously, there was only the onshore region, which was further north in its entirety.
In other words, Ukraine had no access to the sea whatsoever.
Thereon, the evolution of time indicated the course .
That’s how the two areas appeared : the closed and the open.
Because they constitute the direct contact with the land and the sea,
this form is the most stable.
As for the case of the peninsula, it seems that its almost contact with another point of the coast, explains the phenomenon.
At this point there’s a Nash equilibrium present, due to a condition of double monitoring that we are aware of from the go game, where the first player who plays in this field in order to change the data, loses in the long run.
Consequently, nobody makes the move which causes an action, due to irreversibility.
In this manner it becomes understood what’s cross-sectionally called a crisis, and what’s its resolution, which by the way is a matter of time for those who can observe its mental schemes.