Why call this group the “global class”? Because throughout all these years (with the possible exception of the last few years following the launch of the Special Military Operation), globalist norms prevailed: rules, interaction algorithms, cultural orientations, symbols of prestige, and markers of success. What Jean Baudrillard described as “semiurgy”—the production of specific signs of consumption that elevated successful individuals into a “higher estate” and certified their status.

Pierre Bourdieu conceptualized this phenomenon through the notion of a “club.” Membership requires fulfilling numerous conditions: not merely possessing large sums of money, but living in a prestigious neighborhood, wearing clothing from the latest collections, frequenting specific golf courses, obtaining the proper education, and presenting oneself accordingly. Entry into this “club” demands an array of competencies beyond capital alone: the ability to allocate assets correctly, increase them, preserve them, and avoid squandering them.

For the past twenty-five years, the entire system of markers signaling membership in this “club,” its “entry tickets,” and its evaluative criteria has been defined by globalist ideology. One was expected to be a “citizen of the world”: to earn in one place while investing elsewhere, to live across multiple countries, constantly on the move or existing in an extraterritorial mode—on a yacht, for example. One had to listen to the right music and share approved interests: environmental agendas, feminist studies, or avant-garde transgressive practices. This extended to food choices, personal habits, and lifestyle, including the construction of family relations according to the “new rules” of gender politics (gender reassignment, transgender identity, and so forth).

Anyone who wished to be genuinely “advanced” or “progressive”—whether Chinese, Russian, American, African, Arab, or European—was required to conform to this global code. In this way, a “global elite” emerged, becoming dominant both in our society and in many others. It consisted of oligarchs, senior officials, and prominent figures in culture and science. Together, they formed a global class that fused the economic and cultural elites of humanity.

Since global ideology ruled during this period, those who reached the top either integrated into this “club” or were relegated to the status of “losers”—mediocre figures stuck in the middle class. Even substantial wealth was insufficient for entry into the global class if an individual possessed “coarse manners” or “incorrect” political, religious, or family views from the club’s perspective. Full conformity was required across all dimensions.

In Russia over these thirty-five years, this class has become almost indistinguishable from the ruling elite. I do not claim that our entire elite belongs to it, but its most influential and visible representatives unquestionably do. In the 1990s, becoming part of this global class was openly declared a national objective. Hence the purchase of Chelsea Football Club, life in Western capitals, and the export of capital. In the 1980s, this aspiration existed as a covert obsession; in the 1990s, it became an explicit program; in the 2000s, it was partially concealed. Putin, in effect, stated: “Very well—you are what you are; I have no alternative ruling class. But now you must take into account the role of the state and sovereignty.” Some representatives of the global class resisted and lost their positions; others chose compromise—earning money here, in official or military roles, while spending it there.

This class is fundamentally incompatible with the new multipolar world now emerging—a world defined by sovereignty and a return to traditional values. The “global class” is being defeated everywhere. It lost to Trump, with his blunt MAGA value set, and to his vice president JD Vance—an unabashed “provincial,” a man from the heartland.

At the same time, atypical figures have appeared within the global class itself—such as Peter Thiel or Elon Musk—who openly defied the mainstream. These members of the global class turned against it, effectively betraying it from within. From this rupture emerged the MAGA movement, and the rise of right-wing populists in Europe. Russia, by initiating the Special Military Operation, has definitively chosen a different path.

Those representatives of the global class who remained in Russia and still constitute a significant portion of the broader ruling elite obstruct our further development. Some argue that the priority under these conditions is to avoid repression, but this approach is untenable. The choice is stark: either the “global class” or a sovereign Russia. Yes, our President is a restrained, humane, and balanced leader who avoids extremes. Yet it seems evident that without the systematic removal of this global class from Russian reality, the country cannot move forward.

The class itself, of course, will not disappear on its own. If direct flights to Courchevel are banned, they will find indirect routes. If Western assets are seized, they will build palaces in Dubai. The question remains: what is to be done with them? Re-education or extermination? I believe both are necessary. Harsh measures—including physical repression—must be applied to some in order to demonstrate to the rest that refusal to change their position will lead to the same outcome.

The “global class” functions almost as a world religion, complete with its own rituals, rites, beliefs, and “pilgrimages”—not to sacred sites, but to international parties, fashion shows, and depraved orgies. Epstein Island was one such “sanctuary.”

Preserving this class within the political elite condemns Russia to sabotage and paralysis. Reaching the present moment required immense effort, merely to compel them to refrain from open rebellion against the sovereign course set by our President. We have now reached a point where dealing with them individually or in small groups is no longer viable.

This issue goes far beyond corruption. The “global class” consists of people with a fundamentally different worldview—a different “operating system.” Appeals to legal compliance have no effect on them. They form the core of a “sixth column” operating within our society. It is precisely against this type of actor that systematic repression is required. Just as certain establishments enforce face control based on visible criteria, it is possible to construct a psychological profile of the typical representative of this global class in Russia—and we will recognize them immediately. Mere affiliation with this circle should entail sanctions. Finding a pretext is easy; the objective is to intimidate the rest and force a transition to a different way of life—towards traditional values and patriotism. Without the threat of punishment, no one will change voluntarily.

It is time to acknowledge that a purge of our society of representatives of the global class formed over the past thirty-five or even forty years—beginning with perestroika—is inevitable. They betrayed the country, dismantled it, and stand at the origins of the bloody war we are fighting today. They are direct enemies of our sovereignty. The effectiveness of such repression should be judged not by its severity, but by its results. If sincere re-education follows, the emphasis can shift towards instruction. If not, the process must continue. From a historical standpoint, these measures are unquestionably necessary.