In article , James Oberg wrote:

if the russians hadn't been partners, ISS would have looked different (and
yes, i argue it would have still existed) -- and maybe the shuttle upgrades
and safety projects wouldn't have been stripped bare to pay for 'surprise'
overruns caused by russian non-performance.

I don't think that's an entirely fair comment. RKA (the Russian Space
Agency for those here who don't know) may have made their fair share
of bungling... but I don't think NASA exactly comes out smelling like
roses -- for instance, Henry Spencer once pointed out that NASA hadn't
done actual integration tests between two nodes of the ISS until close
to launch time after someone belatedly suggested it.

Very fortunate this happened because I seem to recollect that they found
(and fixed) a serious issue that may have had been a show-stopper in space.

I can't seem to find that post right now - it was several years ago.

There's also a certain amount of natural tendency to publically assign
blame to partners but then play down any public view of one's own faults -
typical jockeying-for-power in any human relationship; in marriage or
in running an international space station. :-)

I should also point out that the U.S. entered into this multilateral plan
for ISS well knowing the capabilities of the various partners based on
years (and in some cases, decades) of historical experience with various
now-ISS-partners; *especially* the Russians, and were also aware that in a
post-Cold War economy, they had some real funding issues (for starters)
along with political and cultural approaches to space programs.

-Dan