Hello Cubeus.
The foxes are not evolution in the sense of Darwinian evolution, and really nothing new. Scientists have known for centurues that foxes and wolves and dogs and dingos and hyenas are all from one basic kind of wolf-hound. They are of course a result of natural selection in terms of certain existing traits in the ancestoral genes becoming dominat through breeding, though in this case it was artificial breeding doing the same thing. If you go far enough down a particluar line you eventually loose the information from the originals and you cannot go backwards, unless a older (mixed) fox can be breed to reintroduce more of the orginal gene pool.
If you read all the articles you listed, no one - including the Russians, mentions evolution in this context. Apparently the same gene that changes the levels of various hormone levels in the foxes affecting friendly vs aggressive behavior also carries the code for multi-colored furs and variable lengths of tails and some more dog-like characteristics. The breeding program simply kept reinforcing the gene swithces for these characteristics and if it keeps going, then the ability to go back will be lost. In no case does any reputable scientist claim there is new information in the genes. The foxes are still foxes, and could still mix with the orginal foxes. It is no more amazing than other breeding programs humans have done with dogs, and ending up with great danes, poodles, and chihuahuas. All are still considered dogs. In each case the breeding programs for dogs have gone on longer, making it more difficult for opposites to successfully breed. But they are still dogs and of the same original kind.
This is the same tactic used with Spotted moths, finch beaks, butterflies, etc. There is variation and adoptation. That was a creationist idea from before Darwin - Edward Blyth in 1830's. Darwin just extrapolated that idea and said you could go from worms to eagles. Modern genetics has proven Darwin totally wrong. Yet evolutionists look at these micro - adaptation changes (whether natural or artificial) and say something silly like "Presto - proof of Evolution!" They forget the foxes are still foxes, and that many types of foxes with different colorings already exist.
But note also the surprise many expressed how fast the depth of change happened - in "only" 10 generations. That actually fits the young earth interpretation that a single pair of 'wolf-hounds' could have gotten off the ark and 1000's of years later you can have extreme variation developing from that pair.... based on survivability in the environments and human intervention. Long haired dogs doing well in the north, and short hair types doing well closer to the equator for example. The Grant's study of finches also showed a remarkble speed to changes. in finches, though after a draught ended, more varieties of beak lengths could survive just as well (rather than being weeded out) and the succeeding generations went back to being closer to the originals anyway!
By the way, Mutations also do not help evolutionists. They are always a loss of information, such as in this case, perhaps the multi colored fur and loss of the solid silver color could be one. A good book recently published on how the mutation rate is higher than preiously thought and makes Darwinian evolution impossible is "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. John Sanford, the inventor of the Gene Gun.
For more on the Bait and Switch game of evolutionists (which this fox story is) see
http://www.qccsa.org/bait-switch-tactic ... evolution/