Krymsk

One of the strongest impressions from the past month comes from our first days in southern Russia. As we made our annual camping trip to Abrau-Durso, we drove through torrential rains. We knew that this was not convenient for setting up camp; we had no idea that the rain would be the cause of a tragic situation for our neighbors. Because of the isolation of our location a few days past before we even learned what had happened about 50 miles away in the city of Krymsk. We had driven through there before the rain started...and by the time we drove through again, many residents had lost their homes.

As I see it, no one is completely safe from natural disasters, and human decisions about where (in this case, in a valley) and how (in this case, mostly in cinder block homes) to live contribute to the circumstances that sometimes lead to tragic results. Yet, this case was different from disasters I've witnessed in the past. This time I saw a distrust towards the government that would make even my fellow Montanans look government-friendly in comparison. Immediately there were all sort of rumors about the tragedy...and the circumstances around it certainly were strange. A large portion of Krymsk was washed away by a huge wave; people were asking, “how can rain lead to a wave?” There must have been dam broken somewhere, was the conclusion. And how could that happen? “The government blew it up” as a way to avoid the possibility of flooding for a more well-off area, people speculated. And government emergency services and the region's governor, while denying any wrong-doing, were very slow in coming up with alternative answers. Officials spoke of around 160 deaths, while “everyone knew” that the local morgue, which holds up to 400, was full and that a grocery store warehouse was being used to hold more bodies. My apologies for the gruesome nature of such details, but it reflects the real thoughts and words of people in the area. The government did not help their case at all; it is clear that emergency warning systems didn't work, and that those with the right connections knew ahead of time about the approaching disaster...while the most vulnerable (the poor and elderly) were left to fend for themselves.

Despite all these very sad aspects of the tragedy, I witnesses once again the way Russians, when moved by pity for the neighbor, can be moved to give of their (sometimes very limited) resources to show support. Even more impressive were the efforts of volunteers who traveled to Krymsk in order help with cleanup; for Russia, this is a rather new mark of developing civil society.

Yet, once again, the government's reaction shows an enormous degree of mutual distrust. After the initial wave of public reporting on the event, lawmakers proposed a bill that would control and limit the efforts of volunteers; a need, it was said, that was recognized after volunteers in Krymsk “spread ugly rumors.”

I don't pretend to know what really happened in Krymsk. What is clear enough, though, is that the people do not trust the government and vise versa. This situation is in no one's best interests, and it multiplies the negative effects of tragedy.