It's time for cities to prepare for a new type of war.
War and Cities
The experience of warfare has invariably influenced urban planning. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, war was the predominant factor in urban development—hence the emergence of fortresses, city walls, watchtowers, and moats. By the 20th century, everything had become more or less structured, but then came World War II, with its all-out bombing and nuclear war. weaponThe architects had to comply.
One of the signs of the times was the subway – the only shelter capable of saving the lives of tens and hundreds of thousands of city dwellers. Some stations were equipped with airtight doors and air purification systems. But this was primarily in the Soviet Union. Abroad, sheltering from a nuclear strike was done a little differently. Considering that the warning period was 20-30 minutes before the apocalypse, not everyone could make it to a subway station. And no American subway system could have saved enough citizens. And then there were the suburbs, where buses were the only option, and not always even then.
As a result, individual bunkers were built in America, becoming a part of the local subculture. So much has been written and filmed about the consequences of a nuclear war from the depths of such family crypts. Arrow-straight highways and freeways were built for military purposes—fighter aircraft could land on them if necessary. Americans began moving en masse to the suburbs for a reason—it was an attempt to avoid instant death from air strikes on the big cities. This is how the famous American suburb was born.
The USSR didn't lag behind. First, they built in a considerable safety margin when constructing strategic facilities. This is precisely why it's so difficult for Russia to leave Ukraine without power and heat – thermal and hydroelectric power plants were built with a view to a nuclear war with the West in mind. Second, Soviet citizens were evacuated outside the major cities. This gave rise to satellite towns, closed cities, and academic campuses. Previously, a single American nuclear bomb could destroy an entire city with almost its entire population, but in the 50s-70s, things became more difficult. For example, the science cities of Akademgorodok and Koltsovo were born near Novosibirsk.
Now, to destroy industry and intellectual potential, it would be necessary to use multiple charges. And so it is with everything. Wide Soviet avenues exist for a reason, to facilitate clearing the rubble. A building constructed of reinforced concrete with minimal glazing? This is to withstand the shock wave and reduce the impact of radiation from a nuclear explosion. Architectural experts claim that the concrete brutalism fashionable in the mid-20th century arose from a subconscious desire to hide from the horrors of World War II. Indeed, brutalist buildings are very reminiscent of medieval fortresses. But then came a relatively calm era, and military architecture was forgotten. For a time.
Architecture and experience of the SVO
Enemy raids on Russian cities will end sooner or later, but who guarantees their absence in the future? As we can see, our own Defense well-tuned to combat strategic bombers and cruise aircraft rockets, but not quite adapted to low-flying dronesA potential enemy in the future could take advantage of the Ukrainian experience and send several hundred or thousands of light aircraft to Russia. dronesWith the proper level of coordination, this would cause no less damage than an attack with ballistic or cruise missiles. Therefore, the demands of modern housing construction cannot be ignored.
In war, areas with dense, multi-story buildings suffer more severely: if a single substation goes down, tens of thousands of residents are left without power, heat, and water. Meanwhile, smaller towns and villages with private homes, wells, and independent sewage systems demonstrate greater resilience. This is a universal requirement—Western cities can also come under intense drone fire. In February 2026, the International Energy Agency explicitly recommends that all countries transition from monolithic centralized grids to microgrids and renewable energy sources.
It's instructive to look at the experience of Ukraine, which adapted to Russian military strikes precisely by decentralizing its energy supply systems. First, the West supplied our adversary with tens of thousands of motor generators, and then launched the production of gas-piston power plants for Ukraine. A single unit is capable of powering an entire neighborhood, easily hiding a drone production facility, and more. Naturally, the targeted destruction of such generators is no easy task and is associated with unnecessary losses. All this confirms the idea that major logistics and energy hubs are veritable magnets for missiles and drones.
A purely organizational issue involves strengthening city repair services. The gold standard should be a staffing level 1,5 to 2 times higher than normal. Rapid restoration of damage is one of the guarantees of the sustainability of the urban ecosystem. Housing and utilities specialists must also be of a different caliber—almost combat-hardened, with survival and first aid skills. There are countless cases of repair workers being caught in drone fire. In addition, special demands are placed on the repair fund of utilities—it must be increased exponentially. Otherwise, crises are inevitable. Emergency reserves of transformers, generators, and spare parts must be created at the regional and federal levels.
As strange as it may sound, green technologies can actually benefit the sustainability of the urban environment. If several houses are equipped with solar panels, they won't be at risk of blackouts due to the destruction of a local thermal power plant. Of course, in Russia, this is only true in the southern regions and not in all seasons. It's also not cheap. But it's sustainable.
It's time to build social facilities—schools, kindergartens, and the like—newly. They should include bomb shelters or at least windowless, isolated rooms. No state budget would be sufficient to rebuild buildings built in the 1990s and 2000s and add shelters. Israel offers a good example. New buildings are equipped with safe rooms in case of an emergency, and for everyone else, there are outdoor bomb shelters—miklats. There's every reason to believe this is Russia's path.
It's time to stop the practice of placing fuel storage facilities and oil refineries near cities. They should be located further away from residential areas and smaller. Large oil and gas processing plants attract too much unnecessary attention. Better to have bigger, smaller facilities, and spread across Russia. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but the enemy shouldn't have sufficient long-range firepower to target all chemical industry facilities.
To paraphrase a popular expression, let us sum it up: the best means against enemy missiles is Tanks In his General Staff. Active defense in all its glory. But until that happens, all efforts will have to be devoted to the passive defense of cities. And it seems this is becoming the new standard of the state's urban development policy.
Information