The operation in Syria does not boil down to neutralizing long-distance threats to our security, protecting an ally or pursuing other national interests. Everything is much more serious — we are establishing a new world order.

Hitching its wagon to a star
Condoleezza Rice, former US State Secretary, and Robert Gates, former US Defense Secretary, developed a very fresh, creative idea in their article in The Washington Post: Russia got involved in Syria's affairs because of its great-power complex. Pleasing his propagandized population, Vladimir Putin is stabilizing a difficult domestic situation with foreign policy victories. The authors are urging everyone not to believe that we want peace in the Middle East and suggesting that our presence there should be balanced out by active support of confronting forces.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was even more specific the other day. He said Russia is attacking US assets in Syria. In fact, he admits that the Islamic State and other bandits in Syria are US instruments and by our actions we are encroaching on US property. Therefore, the United States should retaliate.
I must admit that we are really standing in the United States' way. In the near future Washington plans to rob and de-industrialize Europe via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Grievances against Volkswagen are just the first portent. Lying in store is such a wonderful historical innovation as substantial negative interest rates in concert with the elimination of cash. This is designed for advanced countries. Those that are lagging behind will have their accounts reduced to zero with so-called "bail-ins" (like in Cyprus).
We are in for the devaluation of all industrial assets and their large-scale purchase by those who have access to the FRS's printing press. Those who will still operate in cash will be hit by hyper-inflation. Implementation of these plans implies the dismantling and liquidation of states and all other institutes of sovereign thought and will.
They will not give up the idea of exploitation. They will not renounce interventions, revolutions, coups and murders, or attempts to promote their agents to important positions, or bribery of all key figures, the brainwashing, moral and ethical corruption and seduction of the population, not to mention support for terrorists of all hues, all kinds of private armies and the like. They will not abandon their stake on a permanent global war or attempts to put everyone into complete medical, pharmaceutical and financial dependence and to establish full operational control over the emotions, ideas and conduct of both individuals and entire nations.
It is not paranoia to think like this because this is their social nature, their origin. They cannot be different unless they want to change for some reason but this is unlikely even in mid-term perspective. They are predators. I'm not referring to the United States as a nation or state. I'm referring to a special guild of people that appeared in Italian cities — Arti maggiori (wholesale vendors and bankers) that have now grown up to become a super-society and super power (read Alexander Zinoviev). They control global finances, states and industrial assets. Now they want to lay their hands on our psyche, bodies and will. This information is accessible and this is all obvious. Conspirology was invented to stigmatize the obvious with labels of being non-existing conspiracies.
There must be no independent players left in this world. Bashar al-Assad must go because he doesn't want to leave. Nobody can have one's own will. Any hint at sovereignty and you are subject to elimination. You are subject to it even without any hint of independent thinking and will be allowed to exist — for the time being.
This is what we decided to oppose. The operation in South Ossetia in 2008 could still be taken under the pretext of defending our peacemakers who were attacked. The accession of Crimea and assistance to Donbass could also be explained by "interests" and "imperial nostalgia": adjacent territory, Russian-speaking population, historically one nation, a sharp reduction in the missile flight time to Moscow and the like.
But what about the operation in Syria, a conflict thousands of kilometers away from us? Of course, we can talk about the remote frontier of defense against terrorists, Gazprom interests and the like, and this is all true. However, there is more to it. We are again opting for a sharp aggravation of relations with the United States and this time not at our borders. Why are we doing this?
Interests and benefits are irrelevant here. What matters is the strategy of survival. If they format the world as they see fit (plunging into chaos its bigger part and eliminating any opportunity of independent conduct and self-organization in the rest of it), we won't be able to sit out this conflict resting in our fortress. They will starve us out by siege eventually.
It is time to act and show our cards. We do not accept their version of the world order. We are ready to support anyone who is prepared to resist their plans of world arrangement. We will defend states regardless of their system or religious affiliation. We will force peace upon those who will encroach on the sovereignty of their neighbors, even if they are a fledgling of the hegemon. Our position is based on a last-resort reality — we have nuclear missile parity with the hegemon.

We have the power but we need ideology
Since we started acting, it is time to talk. The thesis of a multi-polar world has only one point — there won't be a single power center in the world. But we can't settle for just this. We must make it clear what alternative world order we suggest nations join on their own accord. What world order are our Aerospace Forces establishing in Syria? In effect, by destroying bandits in Syria, we are exercising a police function but what kind of the world is it? We will be accused of fulfilling it without authorization and of being bad policemen because we strike at the wrong targets and at the wrong time.
We need to substantiate our presence in Syria ideologically rather than only legally. We must act as agents of a new, alternative world order, in a clear and transparent manner.
I believe the main point is that we intend to counter global war with global peace. Our world order is based on peace as distinct from theirs that rests on war. We claim a police function in a violence-free world. And we do need peace in the Middle East. This is possible if major players accept that peace is better than war and if we destroy all instruments of war. This is a contextual conclusion.
However, we must answer conceptually what this world order should look like. How is it possible to translate into reality the long-standing dream of nations, that is, to live without war? It would be logical to answer this question now that a global multi-aspect ("hybrid"), multi-lateral war of many against many, if not all against all, is being initiated and cultivated, and humanity is balancing on the brink of self-destruction and degradation.
What do we have to say to urbi et orbi? Do we have a sociological and anthropological imagination? What do we bring to the table? In the past we had the idea of class-free solidary society that we tested on ourselves and offered to others. And what do we have now? I will give a brief account of some considerations on this score below.
Niche co-existence instead of united humanity
Socially, the future world order should not rest on the idea to make all of humanity happy. Nobody should have the right to occupy a "socio-technical position" in relation to the human race. A desire to bring humanity into some ideal shape should be considered criminal. The road to the social hell is paved by such good intentions, not to mention cases when arti maggiori organize their feeding trough and present it as the best lot for all. In the modern world seizure and robbery are always presented as some noble mission. Rebuild, reform and organize only yourself. Later on you can share your experience with those who want to listen. All those who will try to reform others should be slapped on the wrist.
It is necessary to slap all those who would spiritualize us by force, no matter with what religion, be it Catholic, Islamic or some other. The same should be done to those who will democratize us or encourage gender variations. In other words, nobody should establish universal order.
As distinct from Soviet times, we are not imposing anything on anyone — be it socialism, democracy or capitalism… We are just imposing on the world peace. Peace is established as a combination of two processes: separation and integration. If you want to do something first separate, and set up an eco-friendly niche, a place where you won't cross with others and where your life won't interfere with the lives of others.
This does not mean that there shouldn't be anything that can bond humanity into an integral whole. Separation of different people and nations into niches should be accompanied by intensive integration. At the current period (about a thousand years now) this is a process of communication, one built on mutual interests and understanding. It makes no sense at this point to invent a common goal for the human race. This is premature and not the task of humans to do this. Either God will give us a hint again or history will have its say.

The need for strategic anthropological initiative
Apart from the social dimension, the new world order should have an anthropological aspect. What type of personality would be good for a peaceful humanity? What is the loadstar? I believe that people should rid themselves of egotism.
Marx had such anthropological imagination. He clearly saw the world without predators, exploitation and wars. Every person takes a conscientious part in the life of humanity. All these activities are aimed at the reproduction and development of all people.
Marx wondered what prevented the world from living like this and tried to find the answer in economics. He reduced everything to the issue of ownership of the means of production. However, it is unclear why such ownership can prevent people from working for universal benefit. And the other way round — how can I be prevented from acting against common interests even if I'm deprived of such ownership?
It goes without saying that ownership or economic relations do not explain the issue. Even power alone is not the answer. What matters is egotism and rational egoism, as Zinoviev pointed out.
At one time the Soviet government opted for eliminating entire classes. Exploitation was liquidated on par with the carriers of exploitative ideas but egoism reproduced itself nonetheless because egoism is a sophisticated motivational complex that consists of emotions, perceptions and convictions. It is a certain way of life. It strikes root in social structure as well and is being reproduced together with it. Moreover, the power and inertia of this way of life are so strong that even a radically transformed structure returns to its initial format under their influence. Our party apparatchiks ruined the country (or allowed its destruction, which is basically the same thing) for the sake of personal wealth, and its descent once again reproduced the structure of class society.
Meanwhile, human nature can change because humans are free of biological and — in some cases — even of socio-cultural determinants.
We must get rid of egoism and we can do this if we set such a goal. After all, corruption is also a manifestation of egoism. The primary role here is played by anthropology, humanitarian practices and Russian philosophy. We should resolve this issue not so much by imposing discipline or punishment because these methods are unreliable but through the practice of personality. We must develop the right personal attitude, and make personal efforts and personal decisions.
Every person should become conscientiously and willingly universal. People should be responsible for the continuation of life on Earth regardless of any corporate, public or clan interests, any collective or personal egoism.
The issue of egoism should become the focus of culture: literature, philosophy, child rearing and education, politics and social practice. Philosophy and commitment to responsible participation in the affairs of the human race should become our mentality.
We must learn to produce such people. We must demonstrate to the world an opportunity to develop them. And this would be — in addition to our power — our largest contribution to peace on Earth.