[}} I read an interesting take from poster Zlatti on X re: Ukraine and the Russia Ukraine ceasefire and thought it correct or at least reasonably likely
and more to Zlatti point - and I add as perhaps more important -
Violation of the ceasefire was a great gift to Russia and Putin was very intelligent to agree to
the ceasefire in the first place -
Russia may well use this violation(s) as a negotiation tool - Saying something to the effect of - we just gave you a ceasefire and you did nothing - so we are asking for more now - how can you deny this
====================
Zlatti
USA has only limited control over Ukraine
Today marks the end of the ceasefire agreement concerning critical energy infrastructure — a deal struck between Russia and the United States to prevent strikes on such targets from either side. This moratorium was meant to preserve civilian infrastructure and avoid escalation in a particularly sensitive domain.
And yet, as it ends, one truth becomes undeniable: the United States has no real control over Ukraine. From day one of the agreement, Ukraine has repeatedly violated the terms. Not once, not in isolated incidents — but systematically, day after day, ignoring the very conditions Washington supposedly guaranteed.
This moratorium was not just a test of restraint. It was a test of influence. And what it revealed is glaring: the U.S. may speak loudly on the world stage, but when it comes to reigning in its proxy, it’s nothing but empty words.
I am wondering what would happen if there was a missile attack on Diego Garcia with hypersonic missiles of course that did damage or pretty well wiped out the B2 bomber group there? Would it be possible for Iran to give Yemen missiles with that kind of range to do the job?
Perhaps of Interest : If the Houthi's/Yemen military claims are not overly exaggerated it may be that [ speculation ] :
Background: A single Houthi missile or drone may require 1–3 defensive missiles, depending on the threat type, intercept confidence, and engagement
The Eisenhower expended missiles at a moderate rate, driven by frequent but smaller attacks and sustained offensive strikes. Eisenhower was of course the initial engagement and during Biden office the ' threats' were perhaps ' not as great '.
While The Truman expended missiles at a significantly higher rate, driven by larger Houthi salvos requiring more defensive intercepts in a shorter period. Greater threats and active US bombing as mentioned B52 and ' experience ' gained by both parties.
I ran it by Grok
According to GROK and with the assumption the Houthi / Yemen claims are not exaggerated
Conclusion on Missile Expenditure:
The Truman has been expending a greater quantity of missiles in a shorter time period. Its total expenditure (214–287 missiles) approaches or matches the Eisenhower’s (245–305) in one-third to half the engaged time (33–66 days vs. 120–150 days). The Truman’s daily rate (3.2–8.7 total, 2.0–6.3 defensive) is 2–4 times higher than the Eisenhower’s (1.6–2.5 total, 0.7–1.4 defensive).
===== my opinion and speculation
I see the deployment of the additional carrier as a necessity something the US hoped to avoid, but a requirement, and see the carrier Truman will need to return to US with less time on the water in the Red Sea than Eisenhower. I imagine it possible that given the experience on the Eisenhower the US may have underestimated the abilities of the Houthi's Yemen and expected something similar and not the high rate of attack or greater need for defensive weaponry and missile use.
Underestimated abilities of opponent would not surprise me ; failure of presumptions.
P.S. The US and Grok did also - often appear to claim the Houthi attacks missiles are not accurate and therefore ineffective. In fact Grok claimed them as "ineffective". Noting: The US has for example claimed the Houthi missiles have missed by 100 miles. I find that ' milegae miss ' very difficult to believe given Houthi experience against Saud, against Eisenhower and against Israel - frankly their missiles do not appear to be that inaccurate - however I stray from the point.
The point is that the Houthi are quite possibly not even attempting to hit the Truman, and have no intent to hit the Truman nor to kill any soldier --- but merely harass the Truman and make it so Truman cannot complete it's mission [ bombing Yemen ] but also I imagine the primary goal is attrition - and as for the goal of attrition the Houthi's appear very accomplished given the expenditure of missiles of Truman v. Eisenhower in a shorter time period.
Thanks for all that, Joe. I think you're definitely on to something. If Iran is closely consulting with Russia and China--which they are--I think there's excellent reason to believe the Houthis are getting some pretty professional advice, too.
Thanks Mark your article made me think of the question - I agree Russia China Iran Yemen are probably growing closer and closer daily
- I thoroughly believe Houthis are intentionally Not hitting the aircraft carriers, they do not want the elevation of war resulting from deaths of Americans
- The US military sells this as a weakness or lack of technology but I simply do not believe it
I think Trump should listen to Tucker, Gabbard, Vance and, possibly, Don Jr. Going on my gut, I tend to view Don Jr. favorably.
I can well believe we're expending our munitions, as this country tends to put its faith in technology, instead of God.
I've said before and I'll say it again. This country is resting on its laurels and its legacy. If we don't stand down on our go-to strategy of bombing other countries, we're going to get the humiliation we so richly deserve.
Re Trump's gullibility. Just now listening to Phil Giraldi explaining how an Israeli agent named Bolton got to Trump and convinced him that Iran was cheating on the JCPOA. Which it wasn't. So Trump walked away from JCPOA and Iran responded by getting on the path to threshold nuke status. Now Trump wants to get back to JCPOA. Duh! Keep that in mind, anyone who thinks these appointments don't matter.
Mcgregor's comments about Trump's "gullibility" get back to what I was musing about a couple of days ago. Will these "exceptionalism" believers ALLOW themselves exposure to alternate viewpoints? It's like willful naivety.
I hear comes out of Rubio's mouth, as an example - all about the imperative of American might and American interests, with total confidence and conviction. Same with Hegseth as another great example. More what I would expect from members of "The Greatest Generation". Is steadfastly adopting that world view the requirement for being a Republican Senator from Florida, or a Fox News host for that matter. My dad would watch Fox at 110 dB all day, only to turn it down to rant about "those damn Moslems" or something like that. If that is your electorate or news audience, and you want to get ahead, then preaching the goodness of forced hegemony is the only path to success, and actually believing what you say would make that easier.
A real estate agent told me the major forecasters thought there would be 3 minor rate cuts this year. I’m skeptical…
My guess the total amount of missions the B-2’s are doing is more symbolic, and insignificant due to how many b-2’s deployed, flight time, hours of maintenance required per flight hour, and overall readiness.
So having the B-2s parked and available on Diego Garcia--7 out of 19 total B-2s, shows that they flew extras across the Atlantic for both optics and as backups while others are being revitalized after Yemen bombing runs.
Oh, the cost to fly the seven B-2s from Whiteman afb in Missouri to Diego Garcia! There may be more of them parked on that island now. I read recently that satellite photo-taking of Diego Garcia has been blocked--I do not know for sure about this.
The US is spending as though its pockets carry an endless supply of money.
Do you all think that the US would drop a nuclear bomb down a hole they (the US) has made in Yemen's mountainous terrain?
[}} I read an interesting take from poster Zlatti on X re: Ukraine and the Russia Ukraine ceasefire and thought it correct or at least reasonably likely
and more to Zlatti point - and I add as perhaps more important -
Violation of the ceasefire was a great gift to Russia and Putin was very intelligent to agree to
the ceasefire in the first place -
Russia may well use this violation(s) as a negotiation tool - Saying something to the effect of - we just gave you a ceasefire and you did nothing - so we are asking for more now - how can you deny this
====================
Zlatti
USA has only limited control over Ukraine
Today marks the end of the ceasefire agreement concerning critical energy infrastructure — a deal struck between Russia and the United States to prevent strikes on such targets from either side. This moratorium was meant to preserve civilian infrastructure and avoid escalation in a particularly sensitive domain.
And yet, as it ends, one truth becomes undeniable: the United States has no real control over Ukraine. From day one of the agreement, Ukraine has repeatedly violated the terms. Not once, not in isolated incidents — but systematically, day after day, ignoring the very conditions Washington supposedly guaranteed.
This moratorium was not just a test of restraint. It was a test of influence. And what it revealed is glaring: the U.S. may speak loudly on the world stage, but when it comes to reigning in its proxy, it’s nothing but empty words.
https://x.com/Zlatti_71
“JUST IN: China is importing record amounts of Canadian oil after cutting US purchases by 90% amid trade war.”
Canada is Chyna’s bitch. Excuse the harsh language.
But you are absolutely correct and they are also not our friend.
US was never theirs either now, was it?
No, it was a source of wealth for them.
I am wondering what would happen if there was a missile attack on Diego Garcia with hypersonic missiles of course that did damage or pretty well wiped out the B2 bomber group there? Would it be possible for Iran to give Yemen missiles with that kind of range to do the job?
What a disaster that would be.
Perhaps of Interest : If the Houthi's/Yemen military claims are not overly exaggerated it may be that [ speculation ] :
Background: A single Houthi missile or drone may require 1–3 defensive missiles, depending on the threat type, intercept confidence, and engagement
The Eisenhower expended missiles at a moderate rate, driven by frequent but smaller attacks and sustained offensive strikes. Eisenhower was of course the initial engagement and during Biden office the ' threats' were perhaps ' not as great '.
While The Truman expended missiles at a significantly higher rate, driven by larger Houthi salvos requiring more defensive intercepts in a shorter period. Greater threats and active US bombing as mentioned B52 and ' experience ' gained by both parties.
I ran it by Grok
According to GROK and with the assumption the Houthi / Yemen claims are not exaggerated
Conclusion on Missile Expenditure:
The Truman has been expending a greater quantity of missiles in a shorter time period. Its total expenditure (214–287 missiles) approaches or matches the Eisenhower’s (245–305) in one-third to half the engaged time (33–66 days vs. 120–150 days). The Truman’s daily rate (3.2–8.7 total, 2.0–6.3 defensive) is 2–4 times higher than the Eisenhower’s (1.6–2.5 total, 0.7–1.4 defensive).
===== my opinion and speculation
I see the deployment of the additional carrier as a necessity something the US hoped to avoid, but a requirement, and see the carrier Truman will need to return to US with less time on the water in the Red Sea than Eisenhower. I imagine it possible that given the experience on the Eisenhower the US may have underestimated the abilities of the Houthi's Yemen and expected something similar and not the high rate of attack or greater need for defensive weaponry and missile use.
Underestimated abilities of opponent would not surprise me ; failure of presumptions.
P.S. The US and Grok did also - often appear to claim the Houthi attacks missiles are not accurate and therefore ineffective. In fact Grok claimed them as "ineffective". Noting: The US has for example claimed the Houthi missiles have missed by 100 miles. I find that ' milegae miss ' very difficult to believe given Houthi experience against Saud, against Eisenhower and against Israel - frankly their missiles do not appear to be that inaccurate - however I stray from the point.
The point is that the Houthi are quite possibly not even attempting to hit the Truman, and have no intent to hit the Truman nor to kill any soldier --- but merely harass the Truman and make it so Truman cannot complete it's mission [ bombing Yemen ] but also I imagine the primary goal is attrition - and as for the goal of attrition the Houthi's appear very accomplished given the expenditure of missiles of Truman v. Eisenhower in a shorter time period.
Thanks for all that, Joe. I think you're definitely on to something. If Iran is closely consulting with Russia and China--which they are--I think there's excellent reason to believe the Houthis are getting some pretty professional advice, too.
Thanks Mark your article made me think of the question - I agree Russia China Iran Yemen are probably growing closer and closer daily
- I thoroughly believe Houthis are intentionally Not hitting the aircraft carriers, they do not want the elevation of war resulting from deaths of Americans
- The US military sells this as a weakness or lack of technology but I simply do not believe it
I think Trump should listen to Tucker, Gabbard, Vance and, possibly, Don Jr. Going on my gut, I tend to view Don Jr. favorably.
I can well believe we're expending our munitions, as this country tends to put its faith in technology, instead of God.
I've said before and I'll say it again. This country is resting on its laurels and its legacy. If we don't stand down on our go-to strategy of bombing other countries, we're going to get the humiliation we so richly deserve.
Re Trump's gullibility. Just now listening to Phil Giraldi explaining how an Israeli agent named Bolton got to Trump and convinced him that Iran was cheating on the JCPOA. Which it wasn't. So Trump walked away from JCPOA and Iran responded by getting on the path to threshold nuke status. Now Trump wants to get back to JCPOA. Duh! Keep that in mind, anyone who thinks these appointments don't matter.
Trump listens to all the people that got the US into these wars and coup d’ etas, color fake revolutions, fomenting civil wars staring in the 90’s.
Mcgregor's comments about Trump's "gullibility" get back to what I was musing about a couple of days ago. Will these "exceptionalism" believers ALLOW themselves exposure to alternate viewpoints? It's like willful naivety.
I hear comes out of Rubio's mouth, as an example - all about the imperative of American might and American interests, with total confidence and conviction. Same with Hegseth as another great example. More what I would expect from members of "The Greatest Generation". Is steadfastly adopting that world view the requirement for being a Republican Senator from Florida, or a Fox News host for that matter. My dad would watch Fox at 110 dB all day, only to turn it down to rant about "those damn Moslems" or something like that. If that is your electorate or news audience, and you want to get ahead, then preaching the goodness of forced hegemony is the only path to success, and actually believing what you say would make that easier.
A real estate agent told me the major forecasters thought there would be 3 minor rate cuts this year. I’m skeptical…
My guess the total amount of missions the B-2’s are doing is more symbolic, and insignificant due to how many b-2’s deployed, flight time, hours of maintenance required per flight hour, and overall readiness.
So having the B-2s parked and available on Diego Garcia--7 out of 19 total B-2s, shows that they flew extras across the Atlantic for both optics and as backups while others are being revitalized after Yemen bombing runs.
Oh, the cost to fly the seven B-2s from Whiteman afb in Missouri to Diego Garcia! There may be more of them parked on that island now. I read recently that satellite photo-taking of Diego Garcia has been blocked--I do not know for sure about this.
The US is spending as though its pockets carry an endless supply of money.
Do you all think that the US would drop a nuclear bomb down a hole they (the US) has made in Yemen's mountainous terrain?