Every war is partially an act of staging. In any military campaign there is always a strong symbolic component and a somewhat forced theatre-like quality that seeks to convey a message that is not always directly related to the military action itself. In the case of the Russian intervention in Syria, several details about the "wrapping paper" that has accompanied this military campaign give us clues about the message that Moscow intends to convey to the West and to the world.

It is clear that Putin has been careful in presenting the Russian bombings in Syria. To begin with, Moscow has used a television channel with global reach to cover the campaign for the first time. Copying a CNN model, Russia Today has become a 24-hour news channel in English with a visual and journalistic style that is very similar to that of the BBC and Fox News.

However, Russia Today, despite its technological trappings, its anchors' suits and British accents, is not a private or free channel, but rather a state-sponsored media entity. The news and features it produces are a mere loudspeaker for Moscow with the added novelty of modern and attractive audiovisual techniques. In this sense, Russia Today is trying to be what CNN was for the first Gulf War, i.e., a top media source on the military campaign with exclusive interviews, reporters on the ground, striking images, 3D mapping, a data campaign and intense debates. For the first time, Western media does not monopolize the media coverage of a foreign-armed conflict.

In close cooperation with Russia Today (and again following the American model), the Russian army has carried out a "transparency" exercise that is out of character. As if it were the Pentagon, a female Russian military member (another sign of "progress" within the country's armed forces), gives a daily report about the bombing and answers reporters' questions. Behind her there are an impressive television screens with all sorts of data and videos showing the effectiveness of Russian laser-guided bombs.

The message here is clear: in Putin's new Russia, the army is a modern and effective institution comparable to the U.S. or U.K. militaries. The contemporary Russian army no longer identifies with the one that chaotically fought in Chechnya in the 1990s, where soldiers were poorly armed and chaos seemed to reign in military operations. Nor is it the Russian army that invaded Georgia in 2008, where poor coordination was reported and Russian planes mercilessly bombed civilian centers. Russia now hopes to convey the impression of a professional army that has the latest supplies and effective leadership and that deals in laser-guided bombs instead of massacres, press conferences with videos instead of accusations in the press, and an educated military interacting with reporters at impressive facilities rather than ragged and exhausted soldiers on the ground.

Finally, it is important to note the variety of weapons that Putin has decided to use against the rebels. Apart from the use of fighters and bombers, Russia chose to attack Syria with cruise missiles launched from warships located in the Caspian Sea, 1500 kilometers away. The use of these missiles was totally unnecessary and did not correspond to the situation of confronting Syrian rebels. It was, instead, a performance to show off Russian technological and military power. What other countries can so precisely attack from afar? Here the message is clear: complex military actions are no longer the monopoly of the United States.

It is also important not to forget that Russia is using Syria as a testing ground for new weapons. In this case, the Syrian situation draws close parallels with the Spanish Civil War, where certain powers, especially Nazi Germany, used the conflict as a testing ground for new arms and military techniques. A missile or an aircraft (such as the Sukhoi Su-34, which was employed in Syria for the first time), however great it is technologically speaking, is not entirely reliable until having used it repeatedly in armed conflict. Only in an environment of war can a military discover the true potential of its new weapons, their failures and successes.

In addition, once weapons and military equipment have proven their worth and effectiveness in a conflict, the international community views them differently, making them more attractive for future buyers on the international market. (It would not be surprising if, after the performance of the new Russian military equipment in Syria, their export increased to third countries such as India, Egypt or Brazil). Putin in this case is not just flexing his muscles, but rather is using Syria as a showcase for the improved products that the Russia military has to offer on the international arms market.

If Russian missiles are aimed at the Syrian rebels, their symbolic weight is clearly aimed at the West. By launching precision Kalibr missiles (capable of being armed with nuclear bombs, as the Russian Defense Ministry made clear) from warships and submarines 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers away from the target, Putin is making clear that Russia can strike where and when it wants and that no country is too far from the scope of new Russian military might. If Russia can bomb Syria from the Caspian Sea, it can also bomb any European country from the Black Sea or Baltic Sea if needed. Putin's message comes down to this: "Take note, European Union."

In the end, the war in Syria might not even be all that important to Putin, who is instead focusing on demonstrating Russia's strength and intentions. Russia is no longer the embarrassed country of the 1990s; its military power and technological sophistication are comparable to those of the West. And more importantly, the West's unilateral intervention in the Middle East— where Russia was relegated to the role of a passive spectator— is a thing of the past. There is a new superpower in the world and the spectacular and well-managed Russian intervention in Syria intends to make that perfectly clear. And if no one believes it, watch Russia Today.