I am not just talking about re-boost when I am talking about the propulsion provided by the Russian segment, I am talking about general stationkeeping; something that needs to be monitored every day. It's not just about keeping the orbit high, it's also about keeping the station oriented correctly and possible emergency maneuvers if some other object in orbit is going to get too close. All of that is performed by Russian equipment, necessitating at least one Russian on the station at all times. On the flip side, again, at least one American must be on the station at all times to operate and maintain the power systems.
It's not a good thing, but at this time, the crew swaps remain necessary to maintain both Americans and Russians on the station in an emergency situation requiring the departure of one of the crew vehicles.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
But back on topic---Russia has demonstrated it is a one trick pony in space---Soyuz Launch vehicle (circa 1950s) and Soyuz manned spacecraft (first flight 1967) are about the only things that work well for them in space.
Outside of early lunar success and impressive Venus success, they just can't produce any deep space success.
Contrast that to US successes---Mariners, Vikings, Pioneers, Voyagers, Galileo, Magellan, all those Mars landers and rovers, and more recent ones whose names elude me at the moment, to name just a few.
Phobos/Grunt is their last Mars try, I think, and it's at the bottom of the Pacific, having failed to leave low earth orbit.
Russia's space program these days is a lot like Atlanta's Varsity Hot/Chili dogs---something not really all that great, but survives on its reputation.
Sorry if I offend Varsity fans...
And to be fair to Russia (as it pains me) I wish we'd have kept the Apollo/Saturn hardware the way they kept their Soyuz (as above). We could have improved on both as technology came available and probably would be landing S-IB and S-IC Saturn stages at te Cape the way Musk does now, just years earlier.
Just sayin'...
