NASA's response, printed as an addendum, contains the sort of non-sequiturs that, contrary to the presumed intention, can only suggest that NASA is doing exactly what is alleged here: hoping a serious issue will go away.

"As shared by NASA's Kathy Lueders and Joel Montalbano in the media telecon following the event, Roscosmos regularly updated NASA and the rest of the international partners on MLM's progress during the approach to station..."

As far as we know, nothing untoward happened during the approach to station. Restricting this comment to this period renders it irrelevant and signals that NASA is trying to avoid the issue.

"When the unexpected thruster firings occurred, flight control teams were able to enact contingency procedures and return the station to normal operations within an hour..."

So there's no need to be concerned over why it happened, how long it took to discover the problem, or the inability of those at NASA who discovered it to counteract it until the ISS was in a position where Roscosmos could intervene? As the article author points out, this "all's well that ends well" attitude is what led to the Challenger and Columbia crashes.

"We would point you to Roscosmos for any specifics on Russian systems/performance/procedures."

So, NASA seems to be saying, it is not our problem - but, of course, anything that threatens the integrity of the ISS most definitely is.

That covers the whole of NASA's response so far to IEEE Spectrum, other than the utterly anodyne "We continue to have confidence in our partnership with Roscosmos to operate the International Space Station."

What I would like to know is why public relations spokespersons think it is in the interests of their organizations to make those organizations look clueless, while simultaneously insulting our intelligence by implying we will fall for this nonsense?