Wolf your assumptions are POSSIBLE, but you can see in the post just above yours, not always correct. Even if the negatives you are raising happen some of the time, that doesn't make the effort something to ignore. It makes it something to work on. So we are getting quality judging in the US. Build on that. What we dont get in the US is the level of competition.... your CO is not compared to 300 others, it's compared to 30. But FCI type judging ,and Russian type judging, clearly addresses that. Look at the description of the judging that was done, Up to and including holding back awards. (BTW, THAT is where AKC judging can fall down. If we could stop looking at "possibilities" as reality, and start looking at what really happens, there's a point to deal with. We can't get there the way we're going, however) I think it's important to look at the possibilities, and consider them. However, it becomes impossible to accomplish anything, if every negative possibility is considered THE reality. You can think of possible negatives to the point of paralysis. Somewhere along the way you have to find the positives, continue to improve them, and work on reducing the negatives. It's difficult to do, and the person pointing to the negatives risks being seen as a blocker instead of constructive. Practically, you cannot maintain a breeding population/activity, in the US, expecting those breeders to take their dogs to russia to be judged. There has to be a third party process that takes place in the US (and hopefully across the US) to accomplish that. If any time you bring over an FCI, or Russian ,judge, everyone says "oh they were paid... etc etc" then you kill the concept. I dont think it's logical to do that, in the face of facts that tell you they can work very hard, and very well, in that situation. One of the worst situations would be to never show your dogs to others for third party evaluation. Judges brought here can't judge. Don't go to dog shows with their dogs. (how do you get more information about your dogs if you are not there to talk afterwards?) Insist judges educated here can't judge. So, no one can judge but the breeder themselves? Then a breeder ends up sitting back, judging their own dogs, and insisting that everyone else is "wrong". The biggest mistake a breeder can make. That's a lot easier, however. You have to then ask the question (Wolf, you will like this, it's that economic critique) : if they do that, to the degree they can convince others how only they know, how wrong everyone else is, then they can sell their puppies for more. And laugh at everyone else along the way. They also change the breed to suit their eye only. How do you balance that? Reduce that as a possibility? By showing your dogs to third parties. Even with all the flaws you can find in that process, it's better than "nothing" and all the negatives that creates. It's a lot better if you work at it with the judges , with the process. What seems like two breeders disagreeing changes it's nature a lot if you start to drill down on that detail, doesn't it? It changes to one person saying "only I know" vs another saying "I want to hear, and incorporate, what other people who know, have to say". There is another "possibility" to these examples : That some russian breeders make an extra effort to export excellent dogs. That they recognize that it is one world and one breed. That they work with breeders in the US they trust and talk to. That is happening. Not theory, or possibility, but reality. You have to recognize that, and fold it into whatever other presumptions you are making. Another is that at least some judges who come here, paid as ALL judges are, make an extra effort to judge dogs here well, and constructively. That, out from under the enormous pressures of politics within the russian rings etc., that they are actually able to do their job more specifically for the breed. That also has taken place. It's even a matter of public record. If people start to insist that the possible negatives are realities, they can end up insulting the people who really have made the effort. How does the Russian breeder, who exports high quality dogs to a US breeder, react if they see comments like "Russian breeders will soften the breed just to sell puppies" ? How does the respected judge, who spent hours going through the detail, who even showed that detail back to the home country, react if the assumption is "judges who have their trip paid soften their judging". That doesn't mean the negative possibilities shouldn't be considered. they should be. I think it means you consider the negative possibilities, then recognize when they are overcome, and look to do more of that.