In the need for clarification of the scientific entity of geopolitics, I responded with a definition that influenced Greek historians and political scientists, who wanted to approach the burning issue of geopolitics from their own scientific perspective, even with the expected misunderstandings or indirect approaches.

The issue of the relationships between history, political science, ethnology, ethnography, economics, psychoanalysis, philosophy, mathematics, etc. is also something that should be mentioned in these lines: it is clear that if there were no dialectical interaction between human space and natural space, there would be neither economy nor culture, and naturally, there would be neither history, nor ethnology, and so on.

In short, if man did not use his thumb to handle the first tool, there would be no one to use it to utilize the stylus, in order to describe the work of the previous one. Everything that marked the passage of man into life occurred within the framework of the primary natural geographical space and was dictated either by the peculiarities of that space or by human efforts to subjugate them.

And this happened, whether a certain observer followed it and recorded it or not. It was, and continues to be, a dialectical relationship between man and nature, an assumption that has evolved and is unfolding under the demands of geographical space, regardless of whether there is a description or not.

[Excerpt from the text on the back cover of the edition]