Neelix wrote in
:

Similarly, we keep hearing from US media how cash strapped Russia is
and that it won't be able to meet its commitments to the station. But
if you listen to the BBC, you'll find out that Russia is actually
doing quite well with the current oil boom, and that many western oil
companies are investing in Russia.

And if you listen to Russian media like Itar-TASS, Interfax, and RIA
Novosti, you'll find out that RSC Energia considers the current ISS funding
situation "catastrophic". So whatever money Russia is making in the oil
boom, either RSC Energia isn't seeing any of it, or they're lying about the
money they do get.

Has Russia officially advised ISS partners that it would not be able
to meet its Progress and Soyuz commitments in the next year ?

Depends on how you define "Russia". The Russian government hasn't said
that, but RSC Energia has.

http://www.itar-tass.com/english/allnews/469215.html

"The corporation administration did not focus attention on the issue before
the blast-off and the docking, but has to inform its partners now that
there may be no next launchings of a Progress and other spacecraft to
ensure the ISS programme implementation in 2004."

Other articles he

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=5664706
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd...trow=31&da te
=2003-10-21&do_alert=0
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e=1&u=/ap/2003
1020/ap_on_sc/russia_space

It would be really nice to get true factual information within a full
context instead of editorialised information that need to twist a
story into something sensationalitic in order to be published.

I agree. The spin on most of the Russian articles is "the US must pay!",
even to the point of making up non-existent US funding promises (like the
one in the RIA Novosti article).

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.