If the Byzantium chose Constantinople as its capital it is because it constitutes a strategic gateway.
When the gate remains always open, it constitutes a bridge, and when it’s always closed a wall.
But when it obtains this double feature, then it constitutes a strategy, because through the key it creates an asymmetry, since it is easy for its owner and difficult for the enemy.
This usage has always been considered important for the Byzantium and it utilized it effectively for eons.
Following the fall of Constantinople, the Ottomans tried to duplicate this mental scheme, but due to lack of strategy, even its position was degenerated as time passed.
When Turkey decided to set Ankara as its capital city, it commited a strategic mistake.
Because in actual fact, it chose the stability of the closed, and it permanently opened the City, turning it into a bridge.
This was confirmed through her opting in using the 1936 Montreux Convention.
She therefore ignored the high gateway in order to enhance its center, and she consequently abandoned strategy alltogether.
Because if the Mediterranean passage no longer constitutes a strategic point, then it’s meaningless.
With the abandonment of the City as an entity of the land, which belongs to the sea as a port, many of our own have lost their identity.
Therefore we see that, rare are those who see a Master as an intermediate of the perfection, which defends our history without compromises.
Otherwise the degeneration which led to the construction of bridges which are crossing continents, constitutes a degeneration of the initial mental scheme.