Moscow fires

[Shroom Man 777]

Didn't they used to use atomic bombs to stop Siberian forest fires?

[Vympel]

How does one LOSE a batallion of tanks? It just boggles the mind. Seriously though, what are the odds that the Russians can contain this fire, given they as far as I know lack the requisite firefighting equipment, and experience on a large enough scale?

These were vehicles heading to a storage base. They were taken off the train and instead of being driven to their (likely) final resting place, they were left nearby for some reason- possibly lazyness. Some civilians found them one day, instant news.

The recent massive cuts of the officer corps and reduction in the military schools is only a beginning of another massive downsize. "Preparing to fight the last war" again.

It's pretty hard to argue that there aren't way too many officers in the military, and the downsizing of military schools is a natural follow-on to cutting the number of officers when there are simply no places for all these officers the military schools are producing. As for 'preparing to fight the last war', wouldn't you call keeping a ridiculously top heavy and large military machine far more in line with that (i.e. WW3 in Europe) than reducing the size of the military so that its commensurate to likely threats to Russia - which lets face it - are none?

Russia will not be involved in a major landwar against any other great power for the foreseeable future. That's just a fact. I can't think of a worse complete waste of scarce resources than fighting to maintain a large military that has no relevance to its current security needs.

Russia is safe from assault as long as it has the SRF. Whoose future is not in doubt. So they should keep cutting.

[Vympel]

So far as the Russian Army's malaise goes, there's a perverse twist:-

Medvedev has implemented pretty strong anti-corruption reforms - this has resulted in a decrease in crime:-

DATELINE: MOSCOW July 27

Russia’s main military prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky said the number of crimes reported in the Russian army this year has dropped.

“The number of crimes committed in the first half of 2010 in the Russian armed forces and other troops and military bodies was down 10.5% from 2009,” Fridinsky said on Tuesday.

The number of grave crimes including those which resulted in damage to people’s health has decreased, as has the number of military service evasions, down by almost 50%, Fridinsky said.

“The number of crimes committed by officers is down almost 11% in the past half year,” Fridinsky said.

He added that over 270,000 servicemen, their family members, and other citizens had their violated rights restored over the last six months.

Military prosecutors revealed over 128,000 violations of laws, reversed 5,500 illegal acts issued by commanders, and prosecuted some 17,000 officials. A total of 3.3 billion rubles was returned to the state by prosecutors. Over 4,660 people were convicted for various crimes, Fridinsky said.

Further:-

Seven generals and more than 260 officers were convicted of various crimes in the first half of 2010, Russia’s Chief Military Prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky said.

“The rate of misappropriations, embezzlement and abuse of power has increased. Two hundred and seventy officers were convicted for such crimes, including seven generals,” Fridinsky said at a meeting of senior officials of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office on Tuesday.

Fridinsky also spoke about measures to combat corruption.

“Corruption cases increased by almost 26% in the first six months of 2010,” the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.

This has had the effect of increasing the sum of bribes, because corrupt officers/ officials etc aren't willing to risk anything for a smaller amount:-

The average bribe has nearly doubled from 23,000 rubles ($760) last year to 40,000 rubles ($1,320) in the first six months of 2010, the Interior Ministry said Tuesday.

Bribes have become more expensive because those engaged in the widespread practice are rejecting small bribes as too risky amid a Kremlin-led fight against corruption, the ministry said.

“The authorities are fighting corruption, and bribery has become more dangerous,” said Albert Istomin, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry’s department for fighting economic crimes, which released the new bribe figures.

“Therefore, people are not ready to take the risk for a small sum,” he said by telephone.

[K. A. Pital]

It's pretty hard to argue that there aren't way too many officers in the military, and the downsizing of military schools is a natural follow-on to cutting the number of officers when there are simply no places for all these officers the military schools are producing. As for 'preparing to fight the last war', wouldn't you call keeping a ridiculously top heavy and large military machine far more in line with that (i.e. WW3 in Europe) than reducing the size of the military so that its commensurate to likely threats to Russia - which lets face it - are none?

Russia's military is since the 1990s in no shape to fight a "WW3 in Europe".

Russia will not be involved in a major landwar against any other great power for the foreseeable future.

Even a land war with Ukraine would pose massive problems to a force which will be designed as Russia's leaders plan.

Russia is safe from assault as long as it has the SRF. Whoose future is not in doubt. So they should keep cutting.

The future of everything is in doubt in Russia.

[Vympel]

Russia's military is since the 1990s in no shape to fight a "WW3 in Europe".

That's not the point - if anything, one of the biggest reasons Russia's military is in such a malaise was because the leadership from the 1990s to very recently was intent on maintaining a military machine which the country could not sustain, and did not need.

Even a land war with Ukraine would pose massive problems to a force which will be designed as Russia's leaders plan.

The chances of a land war with Ukraine are negligible. And frankly, I doubt Ukraine's military could put up any fight whatsoever if it came to it.

The future of everything is in doubt in Russia.

I'm with Stuart on this one. Things were much, much worse in the 1990s, when people routinely talked about the end of Russia and Siberian separatists and all sorts of nonsense. If it didn't happen then, I doubt it'll happen now.

[Raj Ahten]

Looking at pictures from the fires it looks like no new fire equipment has been bought since maybe the 1970's with many firefighters not even having basic protective equipment. (though fire crews just may not be wearing heavy turnouts given the heat) It's frustrating to think what just a couple of bulldozers or well trained and equipped fire crews could have done for some of the villages that have burned up. The fire behavior in some cases is certainly not extreme by California standards. It's bad when you see local residents using a bucket brigade to try and put out the fires because no other option exists. Knowing first hand the comparatively lavish resources we have available to combat wildfires in the US its heartrending to see Russian civilians trying to save their homes with nothing more than a shovel while in flip flops.

I remember reading awhile back about how the fire services in Russia were plagued by low pay, ancient equipment and a lack of good recruits (most likely caused by the previous two problems). Lax enforcement of fire codes also didn't help. The hopeful note was that conditions and funding were being improved. Given the historic drought though, things were likely to be bad regardless of how prepared the Russian government was though.

[K. A. Pital]

That's not the point - if anything, one of the biggest reasons Russia's military is in such a malaise was because the leadership from the 1990s to very recently was intent on maintaining a military machine which the country could not sustain, and did not need.

I'm not sure how selling or scrapping all carriers (except one), most major surface combatants, especially nuclear, scrapping a good deal of strategic bombers and tank hardware, abandoning SAM and ABM networks classifies as "maintaining" a military machine which Russia could not sustain. It was the most massive downsizing in recent history (ignoring the post-WWII downsize), coupled with national collapse.

Today Russia is creating not a military, but a glorified police force for it's possibly imperialist endeavors in the "sphere of influence" and keeping the population at bay.

The appointing of Serdukov and the replacement of Ivanov was a fundamental shift in attitude. The former is a buffoon. The latter actually tried to tackle some serious issues, like the malaise of the Russian space industry. Just as Ivanov tried to say that Russia lost the ability to build and supply spaceships purely with internal technology, he was replaced. Funny enough, this coincided with massive cuts to ALL military departments.

Land forces? Cut. RVSN? Cut. So no matter what you pick, it will be cut.

The chances of a land war with Ukraine are negligible. And frankly, I doubt Ukraine's military could put up any fight whatsoever if it came to it.

To be frank, Russia could hardly even deal with Chechen islamists as it was. Dagestan, Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria are in a state of low-intensity civil war, nothing less. Strategic objects such as hydroelectric plants are blown up, policemen and soldiers routinely killed, officials assassinated in a fashion that looks more and more like an low-intensity conflict.

I'm with Stuart on this one. Things were much, much worse in the 1990s, when people routinely talked about the end of Russia and Siberian separatists and all sorts of nonsense. If it didn't happen then, I doubt it'll happen now.

Yeah, things were worse in the 1990s (and who if not me would know that). I'm not sure how this changes anything regarding the fundamental challenges to Russia's existence both as a nation-state and as a military power. The fundamental problems have not been adequately tackled. The so-called "reforms" in the Army (as most of the "reforms" everywhere) are usually just geared towards looting money while doing nothing. I'm not sure I share your (or Stuart's, for that matter) optimism regarding anything in Russia.

[Vympel]

I'm not sure how selling or scrapping all carriers (except one), most major surface combatants, especially nuclear, scrapping a good deal of strategic bombers and tank hardware, abandoning SAM and ABM networks classifies as "maintaining" a military machine which Russia could not sustain. It was the most massive downsizing in recent history (ignoring the post-WWII downsize), coupled with national collapse.

The elimination of so many obsolescent systems (hordes of MiG-21s, MiG-23s, and similar 1960s-70s mediocrities, S-75 and S-125 SAMs, old T-55s, T-62s, T-72s and T-64s, list goes on and on) was essential. Most of which you mention were thoroughly obsolete and quite useless at the time - the mediocre rubbish Yak carriers, the warships except for the Sovremenny, Udaloys, Krivaks, and Slavas - which were retained - the first, second and third generation submarines - with the lone exceptions of the 667BDRs and Victor IIIs.

But specifically, I'm talking about their downsizing the armaments of the military but still maintaining the fantasy 'shell' of the Soviet force - an obstinance that impeded meaningful reform of the military into a modern structure aimed at dealing with realistic threats which a budget could sustain.

Today Russia is creating not a military, but a glorified police force for it's possibly imperialist endeavors in the "sphere of influence" and keeping the population at bay.

If those are its designated roles, whats wrong with that? What need does Russia have for a Soviet-style military machine, or anything like it? As I understand it, its future role is to deal with local conflagarations in the near abroad. That's nothing if not realistic.

The appointing of Serdukov and the replacement of Ivanov was a fundamental shift in attitude. The former is a buffoon. The latter actually tried to tackle some serious issues, like the malaise of the Russian space industry. Just as Ivanov tried to say that Russia lost the ability to build and supply spaceships purely with internal technology, he was replaced. Funny enough, this coincided with massive cuts to ALL military departments.

I've read many good things written about Serdukov, myself - the reforms instituted by him have been the most significant in years, and are at least heading towards a clear purpose. Sure, there have been failures - especially in regards to the contracts system, but its not like Ivanov covered himself in glory in comparison, and I doubt Ivanov was replaced for so petty a reason as saying something about space technology- similar comments are made about all sorts of things today by all sorts of people, and they don't get the ass.

Land forces? Cut. RVSN? Cut. So no matter what you pick, it will be cut.

As well they should be. There is absolutely no point in trying to maintain a military force that your economy cannot sustain and which you do not, in any event, need. The RSVN is not going to disappear, and so long as they have a respectable nuclear deterrent - which they do, and will even if it were to be reduced by 50% tomorrow, they're under no threat of invasion. Heck, that's the case even for China, who have a nuclear deterrent so small and unsurvivable it could be wiped out in one blow.

To be frank, Russia could hardly even deal with Chechen islamists as it was.

On the other hand, Georgia was defeated quite easily and with minimal loss of life. If anything, the conflict in Georgia demonstrated two things - that the army is in a much better condition in 2008 than it was in 1999, and identified further problems that need to be addressed. But things could've been much worse.

Yeah, things were worse in the 1990s (and who if not me would know that). I'm not sure how this changes anything regarding the fundamental challenges to Russia's existence both as a nation-state and as a military power. The fundamental problems have not been adequately tackled. The so-called "reforms" in the Army (as most of the "reforms" everywhere) are usually just geared towards looting money while doing nothing. I'm not sure I share your (or Stuart's, for that matter) optimism regarding anything in Russia.

I know, I think you're a pessimist Whilst there are many systemic problems, I think at this stage there are more reasons to be optimistic about the future. Its just a long road.

[K. A. Pital]

Most of which you mention were thoroughly obsolete and quite useless at the time - the mediocre rubbish Yak carriers, the warships except for the Sovremenny, Udaloys, Krivaks, and Slavas - which were retained - the first, second and third generation submarines - with the lone exceptions of the 667BDRs and Victor IIIs.

Um... how about the modern stuff? Second Kuznetzov and Ulyanovsk? How about the Moscow ABM system - was it also "obsolete" like the S-125? The "rubbish Yak carriers" could have gotten a good plane with the Yak-141/41. Alternatively, they could've been conserved and upgraded like Gorshkov. What about the new tanks? Instead of a really new type, we get the T-72M3.

If those are its designated roles, whats wrong with that? What need does Russia have for a Soviet-style military machine, or anything like it? As I understand it, its future role is to deal with local conflagarations in the near abroad. That's nothing if not realistic.

Except the possibility of major border conflict is always there, unlike for, say, the USA which is protected by oceans.

I've read many good things written about Serdukov, myself - the reforms instituted by him have been the most significant in years, and are at least heading towards a clear purpose.

The only clear purpose is downsizing. There's nothing more clear about it. For example, why space forces' students would be taught outside the Space Defence academy? Any explanations to that?

...its not like Ivanov covered himself in glory in comparison, and I doubt Ivanov was replaced for so petty a reason as saying something about space technology- similar comments are made about all sorts of things today by all sorts of people, and they don't get the ass.

I'm not sure I'm going to defend Ivanov. But sure as hell Serdukov's "downsize" reform is not anything close to being "significant" in anything but downsizing itself. What are it's other goals, if any? "Complete re-armament by 2020"? It will fail, because it has consistently failed - re-armament was promised before in the 2000s, and during that time Russia was not in an economic crisis (or, rather, it had the illusion of massive growth thanks to oil revenues). We'll talk about that in 3 years - that's the term our military guys slated to re-arm 1/3rd of the active forces. If they fail, there's no chance in hell for a 100% re-armament by 2020. Not to mention that most replacement hardware is just upgraded 80's designs.

The RSVN is not going to disappear, and so long as they have a respectable nuclear deterrent - which they do, and will even if it were to be reduced by 50% tomorrow, they're under no threat of invasion. Heck, that's the case even for China, who have a nuclear deterrent so small and unsurvivable it could be wiped out in one blow.

Except China builds up it's nuclear deterrent, not downsizes it. They were never in a position to field such a massive deterrent as Russia; and if they were, they'd be happy to have it, as would any nation on Earth.

On the other hand, Georgia was defeated quite easily and with minimal loss of life. If anything, the conflict in Georgia demonstrated two things - that the army is in a much better condition in 2008 than it was in 1999, and identified further problems that need to be addressed. But things could've been much worse.

The Georgian Army was a post-Soviet force in a far greater state of malaise than Russia. To be fair, they could've caused more problems. Still, the "easy" routing in Georgia with top units and a complete inability to deal with the low-intensity war in Dagestan is not a good sign.

[Vympel]

Um... how about the modern stuff? Second Kuznetzov and Ulyanovsk? How about the Moscow ABM system - was it also "obsolete" like the S-125?

Those carriers weren't finished, that's quite a different matter- the cost of finishing them and keeping them operational would've been prohibitive. Also, IIRC the Moscow ABM system is still active.

Except the possibility of major border conflict is always there, unlike for, say, the USA which is protected by oceans.

Sure, its possible, but is it probable? Frankly, 18th-19th century style border conflicts over strips of land appear to be largely a thing of the past, with the exception of some minor third world disagreements or flashes in the pan like the Kargil War.

The only clear purpose is downsizing. There's nothing more clear about it. For example, why space forces' students would be taught outside the Space Defence academy? Any explanations to that?

I have no idea.

I'm not sure I'm going to defend Ivanov. But sure as hell Serdukov's "downsize" reform is not anything close to being "significant" in anything but downsizing itself. What are it's other goals, if any? "Complete re-armament by 2020"? It will fail, because it has consistently failed - re-armament was promised before in the 2000s, and during that time Russia was not in an economic crisis (or, rather, it had the illusion of massive growth thanks to oil revenues). We'll talk about that in 3 years - that's the term our military guys slated to re-arm 1/3rd of the active forces. If they fail, there's no chance in hell for a 100% re-armament by 2020. Not to mention that most replacement hardware is just upgraded 80's designs.

There's no doubt that complete rearmament is not going to happen in the forseeable future, but if they can get the percentage up, that'll be a step in the right direction. Recall that in the Soviet Union only 40% of the military was equipped with modern equipment. Now its like ... 5% or something.

But there are other goals - the structure of the military has been altered so there are more permanent readiness (PR) units that can be put into action quickly, the command system is in the process of being overhauled. Consider Vostok 2010 - by all accounts it went quite well, especially compared to Zapad 2009 (there's a good way of determining that its not just bias, since its been freely acknowledged that the armed forces weren't satisfied with soldiers' performance in that exericse) and validated the concepts they were developing. There's tons of articles about this on various Russian defense blog / commentary websites, but its hard to summarise them.

But downsizing does have a positive effect in and of itself - consider that Russia is drastically reducing the number of operational airfields and combining their forces into some 27 mega air bases. Not only does this reduce costs substantially, it also allows for the servicemen assigned there to live in "human conditions" as one person said. Its a lot easier to provide housing etc. in a consolidated environment as opposed to being spread out over all Russia's landmass.

Except China builds up it's nuclear deterrent, not downsizes it. They were never in a position to field such a massive deterrent as Russia; and if they were, they'd be happy to have it, as would any nation on Earth.

Given China's starting from what is basically zero, that's understandable. However, Russia has a massive deterrent that doesn't need to be built up, or sustained at the current level.

The Georgian Army was a post-Soviet force in a far greater state of malaise than Russia. To be fair, they could've caused more problems. Still, the "easy" routing in Georgia with top units and a complete inability to deal with the low-intensity war in Dagestan is not a good sign.

Georgia was hardly put to bed with 'top' units. None of their armored vehicles, artillery, etc equipment was modern- T-72s, 2S3s, BMP-1s/2s, BMD-1s/2s. Only after the war was the units near Georgia re-equipped with T-90As, BMP-3s, 2S19s, etc. What really told things was that they had just finished a major exercise, so whilst they weren't a top quality unit in terms of equipment, they were (relatively) well trained and I imagine morale would've been high.

Besides, low intensity wars are notoriously difficult for militaries to deal with - drag out, knock down fights with an enemy military are always preferred. Its not like the USSR covered itself in glory in Afghanistan, much like NATO is slowly bleeding itself and accomplishing nothing of substance there now.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, IIRC the Moscow ABM system is still active.

http://victorprofessor.livejournal.com/136111.html
At least one A-135 site, complete with radars and missile silos is fully abandoned. Google tells me it's the 51T6 Azov silos. Too bad.

Sure, its possible, but is it probable? Frankly, 18th-19th century style border conflicts over strips of land appear to be largely a thing of the past, with the exception of some minor third world disagreements or flashes in the pan like the Kargil War.

Tajikistan civil war - 1991-1997. Yugoslavia. I'm not sure conflicts over strips of land are a "thing of the past". NATO might soon leave Afghanistan. What if Hamid Karzai's narco-state collapses? And Tajikistan gets another wave of civil warfare? How would Russia respond? What if things go real bad in Central Asia - none of the regimes there are even half as stable as Russia itself?

There's no doubt that complete rearmament is not going to happen in the forseeable future, but if they can get the percentage up, that'll be a step in the right direction. Recall that in the Soviet Union only 40% of the military was equipped with modern equipment. Now its like ... 5% or something.

*laughs* Yeah, about that. But the percentage will automatically rise if you downsize the military. Slash the forces 50%, and the percentage will rise to 10%. A numerical result!

But there are other goals - the structure of the military has been altered so there are more permanent readiness (PR) units that can be put into action quickly, the command system is in the process of being overhauled. Consider Vostok 2010

http://svpressa.ru/society/article/28065/
This is a good summary of Vostok-2010.
1) Preparing to fight their own population
2) No strategic operations, only tactical

But downsizing does have a positive effect in and of itself - consider that Russia is drastically reducing the number of operational airfields and combining their forces into some 27 mega air bases. Not only does this reduce costs substantially, it also allows for the servicemen assigned there to live in "human conditions" as one person said. Its a lot easier to provide housing etc. in a consolidated environment as opposed to being spread out over all Russia's landmass.

It also reduces survivability of an airforce in modern war. But if we're operating from a "no major war, period" paradigm, sure, that can work.

However, Russia has a massive deterrent that doesn't need to be built up, or sustained at the current level.

Why it shouldn't be sustained at the current level? The USA is pursuing widespread deployments of ABM and also Prompt Global Strike, a very dangerous tool which looks like something of a hyperpower wet dream (conventional missile strikes into any nation within one hour).

What really told things was that they had just finished a major exercise, so whilst they weren't a top quality unit in terms of equipment, they were (relatively) well trained and I imagine morale would've been high.

By top units I meant their readiness, obviously. The equipment is only so good as the people using it.

Besides, low intensity wars are notoriously difficult for militaries to deal with - drag out, knock down fights with an enemy military are always preferred. Its not like the USSR covered itself in glory in Afghanistan, much like NATO is slowly bleeding itself and accomplishing nothing of substance there now.

Well, the USSR had it's enemies generously funded (at 1 billion USD per year) by Pakistan and the USA. What funding do the islamists in Dagestan enjoy? Virtually zero. And yet, they operate with exceptional impunity. The attack on the Baksan powerplant was very indicative. Russia's strategic objects are woefully unguarded, a large swath of the population is often living in pauper-like conditions and the Army is going to be downsized. I can't see that as boding well for Russia.

The downsized Army folks are well-armed people you let out into the society without any support. A certain fraction will just drink vodka and die, but some will turn to crime and terrorism. Not to mention they'll hold a grudge against the government which did it.

Remember, Russia is not the USSR. All downsized lieutenants and other officers won't automatically get assigned to factories, industrial plants or something. They'll just go jobless and become very, very spiteful.

[CJvR]

All this reform talk reminds me of an old saying.

"Anything is possible in Russia - except change."

[Kanastrous]

To be frank, Russia could hardly even deal with Chechen islamists as it was.

On the other hand, Georgia was defeated quite easily and with minimal loss of life. If anything, the conflict in Georgia demonstrated two things - that the army is in a much better condition in 2008 than it was in 1999, and identified further problems that need to be addressed. But things could've been much worse.

Is it possible that to some degree the Chechens are more dedicated fighters, than the Georgians? Also, didn't the Georgians basically try a stand-up defense, as opposed to the guerrilla war fought by Chechens? I'm asking, not stating, since I have a lot to learn about the Chechen conflict.

[wautd]

Wildfire smog chokes Moscow

Planes are being diverted from two of Moscow’s international airports as acrid smoke blankets the Russian capital.

Pollution levels in the city have soared to five times the normal level and office workers have resorted to wearing surgical masks at their desks while many businesses have closed.

“It’s like the fall of Pompeii. It’s dreadful, my throat is parched, and I have a disgusting taste in my mouth,” said one woman .

Another Moscow resident said: “The whole country is crumbling down and on top of that, it’s also burning. It was to be expected. And the scientists long ago warned as soon as we have a very dry and hot summer all will be ablaze. And all is ablaze.”

Everyone, including tourists, are being urged to stay indoors during Russia’s worst heatwave in more than a century.

One visitor said: “The weather is warm – less than I expected (not so hot) – but there is a lot of smoke. And that’s a pity for this beautiful city. I cannot see anything.”

Even the famous onion domes of St Basil’s cathedral were not visible from the other end of Red Square as the smog descended… dimming the summer sun which is being blamed for igniting the deadliest wildfires for many decades.

Video in link. Together with a heat wave it must be terrible to live there right now

other article

MOSCOW — A noxious smog choked Moscow Friday as Russia moved to protect military and nuclear sites from the relentless spread of its worst ever wildfires that have killed 52 people.

The defence ministry ordered the evacuation of missiles from a depot outside Moscow as the authorities warned of the risk of fires reactivating contamination in an area hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Moscow commuters, many wearing masks, wheezed as they made their way to work in the worst smog to hit the capital since the fires broke out over one week ago. Experts said the pollution was four times above safe levels.

The emergencies ministry said the total area ablaze was down slightly at 179,600 hectares (444,000 acres), but there were still 588 fires across the affected region in European Russia and 248 new fires had appeared over the last 24 hours.

The fires, the worst on record in Russia, have claimed the lives of 52 people, the ministry of health said Friday in an updated toll. The emergencies ministry called for volunteers to join the firefighting efforts.

NASA images have shown the fires are easily are visible from space and the US space agency said the smoke has at times reached 12 kilometres (six miles) into the stratosphere.

"The pyrocumulus cloud and the detection of smoke in the stratosphere are good indicators that the fires are large and extremely intense," it said.

Fires around the city of Sarov in central Russia are a particular worry for the Russian authorities as the city houses the country's main nuclear research centre. It is still closed to foreigners, as in Soviet times.

The Russian nuclear agency has said that all radioactive and explosive materials have been removed from the centre and the emergencies ministry has assured the public it has the situation under control.

The defence ministry meanwhile ordered weapons, artillery and missiles at a munitions depot at Alabinsk, about 70 kilometres southwest of Moscow, to be transferred to a secure site.

Emergencies Minister Sergei Shoigu said Friday his forces were also working flat out to prevent the fires spreading to a region in western Russia where the soil is still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster.

"We are painstakingly controlling the situation in the Bryansk region. If a fire appears there, the radioactive particles could fly away with the smoke and a new polluted area could appear," he said.

As well as strategic facilities, the fires were impacting the most diverse areas of life in Russia, from children's holiday camps to animal sanctuaries, reports said.

Russia's chief doctor Gennady Onishchenko said 78 children's holiday camps had been closed due to the heatwave and smoke and 10,000 children taken home to their parents.

Moscow's most famous landmarks like the spires of the Kremlin towers or the onion domes of Orthodox churches were largely invisible from a distance and some flights at its Domodedovo international airport were being diverted.

"It's a serious reason not just for the aged, children and pregnant not to go out into the street but also for people in good health," saod Yevgenia Semutnikova, head of local pollution watchdog Mosekomonitoring.

The mortality rate in Moscow soared by 50 percent in July compared to the same period last year, according to Yevgenia Smirnova, an official from the Moscow registry office.

Travel agents reported that all the package holidays abroad for the coming weekend had been snapped up by Muscovites desperate to escape their smog-filled city, the Interfax news agency reported.

The country is also facing a severe drought that has destroyed 10 million hectares of its arable land and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Thursday banned exports from the world's third wheat exporter until year end.

[Kanastrous]

That lady should be grateful that it's not like the fall of Pompeii...

[hongi]

Is this part of the global warming trend or just an anomalous spike in temperatures?

Seriously though, what are the odds that the Russians can contain this fire, given they as far as I know lack the requisite firefighting equipment, and experience on a large enough scale?

Huh, I had always thought that the Russians had some of the best firefighters in the world. I remember reading about them parachuting people in to set up firebreaks and such.

[Tornado Ninja Fan]

The country is also facing a severe drought that has destroyed 10 million hectares of its arable land and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Thursday banned exports from the world's third wheat exporter until year end.

Did something like that ever happen before?

Or can you only find that kind of news in doomsday novels?

[Gerald Tarrant]

The country is also facing a severe drought that has destroyed 10 million hectares of its arable land and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Thursday banned exports from the world's third wheat exporter until year end.

Did something like that ever happen before?

Or can you only find that kind of news in doomsday novels?

This happened a couple of years ago Link The discussion thread, including Russia's response, export controls. Really you should expect most meats to get more expensive (beef is often described as grain^3). This didn't happen in the middle of a recession last time though, so it's probably going to be much worse for those on the margins than it was before .

[cosmicalstorm]

I thought that the places where they store nuclear weapons and such were designed with the prospect of a nuclear attack in mind, I would have thought they could just close the doors if a forest-fire approached?

[Lusankya]

I thought that the places where they store nuclear weapons and such were designed with the prospect of a nuclear attack in mind, I would have thought they could just close the doors if a forest-fire approached?

Chernobyl is not a nuclear weapons storage facility.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah, the concern is the release of the radioactive particulates that have been sequestered over the years in plants, animals, soil - anywhere that fire could release them into the air, again.

[Broomstick]

Is there a Russian equivalent to the US' National Forest Service, or does each region run its own forestry without interface with the Moscow government?

That role WAS filled by the military under the USSR. There's no Russian Federation equivalent.

Oh, dear lord - is that true? No centralized fire service in a nation that runs to grasslands and historically has built mostly with wood?

Looking at pictures from the fires it looks like no new fire equipment has been bought since maybe the 1970's with many firefighters not even having basic protective equipment. (though fire crews just may not be wearing heavy turnouts given the heat) It's frustrating to think what just a couple of bulldozers or well trained and equipped fire crews could have done for some of the villages that have burned up. The fire behavior in some cases is certainly not extreme by California standards. It's bad when you see local residents using a bucket brigade to try and put out the fires because no other option exists. Knowing first hand the comparatively lavish resources we have available to combat wildfires in the US its heartrending to see Russian civilians trying to save their homes with nothing more than a shovel while in flip flops.

I remember reading awhile back about how the fire services in Russia were plagued by low pay, ancient equipment and a lack of good recruits (most likely caused by the previous two problems). Lax enforcement of fire codes also didn't help. The hopeful note was that conditions and funding were being improved. Given the historic drought though, things were likely to be bad regardless of how prepared the Russian government was though.

Does anyone but me find it ironic that the US has a national-level agency that, as one of its primary duties, deals with wildfires and their prevention (about $2 billion a year, USD, for that alone by the Federal government, and that's not counting state-level appropriations for this work) despite its emphasis on individualism and self-sufficiency, and the former Soviet Union, despite the decades of glorification of communism, collectivism, and central planning, does not?

The current fires in Russia (and surrounding nations) may not be as bad as some experienced in places like California, but keep in mind that the US in recent years has been engaging in prevention by fuel reduction (using brush clearing, controlled burns, etc. to reduce available flammable material), enforcing fire codes, and improving equipment. Also, places like California, which experience large fires on a regular basis, have a certain cultural awareness and knowledge that contribute to successfully combating such blazes and reducing casualties. And their firefighters train and have experience these sorts of situations. The situations are not the same.

Nor is it just a matter of paying people - the US NFS does make use of volunteer labor, including fire fighting. Some jobs do require professional specialists, but others can be done by anyone with the strength to wield a hoe - IF they're told what to do and are willing to work at a hard, hot, exhausting job.

If those are its designated roles, whats wrong with that? What need does Russia have for a Soviet-style military machine, or anything like it? As I understand it, its future role is to deal with local conflagrations in the near abroad. That's nothing if not realistic.

Except the possibility of major border conflict is always there, unlike for, say, the USA which is protected by oceans.

When I took Russian History our teacher introduced us to the notion that that fact had a major effect on shaping the Russia character. Unlike a nation protected by natural barriers such as oceans or mountains, Russia basically sits in the middle of a flat plane that offer no significant obstacles to invaders other than sheer distance (which helps - look what happened to Napoleon when he invaded). The only buffer is to acquire more land (giving expansionist tendencies) and a sort of low-level, paronoid pessimism arose after generations of people living in constant worry someone was going to appear on the horizon without warning and basically steamroll the village on the way to somewhere else (which explains in large part why significant numbers of Russians have some Asian traits, including my Russian grandmother).

All of which is, of course, a monstrous simplification but the fact Russia effectively has no natural borders around it does impact it in several ways. The US is land bordered by only two nations: Canada and Mexico. And the US/Canadian border is unmilitarized, with relations between the two about as cordial as these things get. Realistically, Canada and Mexico have more to fear from the US than vice-versa. The worst border problem the US faces is an "invasion" of Mexicans who - get this - don't want to conquer or destroy they just want jobs. Yet we have one of the largest militaries on the planet and hands down the biggest military budget. Contrast this to Russia, surrounded by multiple nations, many with historical grudges, many outright hostile, full of anti-Russia groups who have most definitely engaged in attacking Russians in the very recent past up through the present. Hell yes, Russia needs an effective military and one that can handle threats on the ground as those threats are very real and do cost Russia lives. "Local conflagrations" sort of trivializes the very real threats on Russia's borders.

Is this part of the global warming trend or just an anomalous spike in temperatures?

Seems to me an anomalous spike in temperatures would be part of a global warming trend...

My understanding is that these air temperatures are unprecedented in Russia, and combined with a drought makes for a very bad situation. Reports of "pyroculmulus clouds" are disturbing, as it means the fires are large and intense enough to change the weather in their locations, setting up microclimates that are conducive to more burning.

Seriously though, what are the odds that the Russians can contain this fire, given they as far as I know lack the requisite firefighting equipment, and experience on a large enough scale?

Huh, I had always thought that the Russians had some of the best firefighters in the world. I remember reading about them parachuting people in to set up firebreaks and such.

Smokejumpers like you describe required training and support, and a fair amount of support. All of which costs money. The Soviets might have had them in the past, but I could seen, post-Soviet break up, those units being cut as a cost-saving measure, particularly if wildfires are uncommon in the region.

[Broomstick]

I thought that the places where they store nuclear weapons and such were designed with the prospect of a nuclear attack in mind, I would have thought they could just close the doors if a forest-fire approached?

Chernobyl is not a nuclear weapons storage facility.

Yeah, the concern is the release of the radioactive particulates that have been sequestered over the years in plants, animals, soil - anywhere that fire could release them into the air, again.

And by "release into the air" consider that a wildfire out of control can evolve into a firestorm, which can throw smoke into the stratosphere, at which point it's riding express to somewhere else (it can also generate flaming tornadoes - not an exaggeration, but exactly what it sounds like - which, when spiced with radioactivity, could really ruin someone's day). Reports of pyroculmulus clouds at some of the current fires indicate firestorm conditions. If a contaminated area burns in this manner the radioactive particles could potentially blow thousands of kilometers downwind. That is, after all, how Europe got dosed during the Chernobyl disaster, the uncontrolled fire threw radioactive shit high into the atmosphere and it rained down elsewhere. I think there's enough suck in the world right now, let's not add that to it as well.

[K. A. Pital]

Does anyone but me find it ironic that the US has a national-level agency that, as one of its primary duties, deals with wildfires and their prevention (about $2 billion a year, USD, for that alone by the Federal government, and that's not counting state-level appropriations for this work) despite its emphasis on individualism and self-sufficiency, and the former Soviet Union, despite the decades of glorification of communism, collectivism, and central planning, does not?

There's nothing ironic in that. The firefighting has been largely abandoned after the Soviet collapse. The pumping stations, for example, rusted away in 1990-2010. They were used to pump water across the dry fields around Moscow.

Russia is the antithesis to the USSR.

[Broomstick]

Ah, more's the pity, that they had that capability once and no longer do so.