The examination of geostrategic relations provides a framework of thought that is more robust regarding national issues. It does not focus only on one country but on its relations with other countries and on the relations that they can have among each other. In this way, the approach of space is multiple and it enriches the notion of boundaries, which are no longer one-dimensional and static as we are used to regard them. This dynamic view of geostrategic relations also supports a historical approach of geography and interprets naturally closed and open boundaries, without the geographic difficulties. With this framework we are able to study more effectively our field and the field of action of the players via Nash’s Game Theory, in order to analyze strategic behaviors. Moreover, Fraïssé’s Theory of Relations, can tolerate the incorporation of the historical element and offers another meaning to geometry in a more complex representation with new possibilities of interpretation and prediction. This is because it releases every headquarters from a linear reading, which is sufficient for an information catalog but not for a database. Geostrategic relations in other words, constitute syntactic structures capable of producing a singular dictionary that describes even the temporal ramifications that characterize a nation’s territorial options. Consequently, it is not about the production of a doctrine even with new facts, nor a simple update because geostrategic relations do not have the same approach neither on an ontological, nor a teleological level. It is not about locations, otherwise they would not have the necessary dynamic element. They operate as hyperstructures, in Marty’s Theory of Hypergroups sense and they do not only have univalent results, a property which allows the establishment of mental schemata that exist in strategy and are included with great difficulty in a linear framework, which is common in the case of a doctrine. The country is not determined only by endogenous factors but in combination with exogenous via Wiener’s cybernetic form. At last, a great emphasis must be given to the single character of geostrategic relations, which is essential for the existence of a grand strategy, which becomes degenerated when the army, the navy and the air force do not operate collectively. Without this perception we will not be in a position to provide our own, who are found in various military and diplomatic positions, a clear framework. National positions without strategy can only describe the past. While geostrategic relations create the history of the future for a nation that resists the space of time, not only for existing, but for its existence to have a meaning.