When we examine Greek sovereignty in Castelorizo, our questioning is Turkish. In more military words the planning is simple, at least theoretically.

If Turkey attempts a landing in Castelorizo, the military reply of Greece would be immediate i.e. the whole plan that concerns the Aegean Sea in general will be activated. We do not want to examine here the effectiveness of our defense in this case, where in essence it would have the form of the battle of Cyprus.

What would be our reaction in the following case that constitutes a lateral attack scenario? In this case, Turkey considers that Castelorizo does not have an EEZ. From this technical assumption, it is deducted that the topostrategy of the area changes radically since the new Turkish EEZ will be in contact with the Egyptian EEZ, which means that Greece and Cyprus will no longer border as far as the EEZ is concerned. Then, Turkey will manage economically the entire area without disputing the Greek entity of Castelorizo.

Our question is the following: Up to what extent will the Greek army be able to react opposite this ostensibly paradox strategic scenario? And perhaps more essentially actually, what will be our political leadership that will decide if it is about a hit at least, if not a reason for war with Turkey. If there is no reaction on our behalf, Castelorizo would turn de facto, if not de jure, into a Turkish island since it would be completely isolated.

Of course, the counter-argument exists and it is based on the idea that the EEZ notion concerns solely economic issues. It is certain that there will also be a geo-economic issue. Moreover, due to the location of the problem in the greater area, the transformation of the geo-economic issue into a geostrategic one, will not only be expected but also natural. And then, via the Voronoi diagrams, we will rationally return in a topostrategic problem. Due to the location, there are analogies with the case of Imvros and Tenedos and also with the Cyprus case. The pressure that is exerted in a small area that has great repercussions, can take many forms.

In this particular case, with the terminology of fractal analysis, we have a small attractor in a vast basin of attraction. The attractor is visible but not its basin, without the tools of topostrategy. The contribution of the latter is that it gives us the possibility to effectively examine paradox strategic scenarios, which can be materialized and bring in a difficult position our classic treatment of sovereignty and the engagement of our armed forces. Our preparation must be first of all mental in order to see the next reality before it appears and we endure it passively.