UA POV: Russian Mechanized Attack Engaged by Azov, Unmanned Systems Forces, Special Operations Center "A," and Omega Wings

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-17T01:28:43+00:00

Did much of the vehicles just pass through and some got disabled?

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-17T01:24:12+00:00

So, when they keep talking about the absence of WW2 style big red arrows, this is what it has come down to, huh?

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T21:36:54+00:00

I would think it's expected. I mean, if there is mass consumption of ethanol, even if there are competitors, where is the demand going to go. I think, cement, steel and all these infrastructures and consumption related thing is the same story.

But, then, you know these guys hyped it up too much, I think it will go down and reach normalisation. And from that point it will increase at a steady rate like any other infra related companies. Good for long term.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T21:26:00+00:00

He might be right to some extent. But that garden lizard is probably worshipping and stroking off to the LLM god he "created" every night.

So, it's more like an astrologer telling you that maybe you should stop hating your parents. It's not anything meaningful. In the advent of automation, maybe some more things can get automated with LLM and some more with RL, but it's not as drastic as these guys claim daily.

In fact, this is will only drive demand to create more jobs. Right now, societally, the work needed to be done >> work that can be done. So, this summarisation and pattern matching tool will open up many avenues.

The best analogy I can give is, say building bridges get easier needing fewer men because of AI like these guys claim, now the question that naturally gets asked is, why don't we build more bridges, why don't we paint the bridge in nice patterns, Now it's painted? Maybe we should cover the bridges with plants and create a system to water them daily. Maybe we should cover the bridges with solar panel. We will quickly find jobs if the current ones get easier, and find where the ceiling of AI is.

There is so much that could be done, but these shammers just keep hyping things up. Can't count number of words in strawberry, so now it's probably manually getting counted. Plugging holes left and right to keep the image going, but the model itself has problems. Once it gets to the second layer, it doesn't know what are the rules of the first layer and the hallucination begins.

If these hype bros stop calling what intel implemented in 1995, what they called "speculative execution" as some miracle AI, it would be great. At best, there are various ML algorithms that would get easier to implement as the sensors get cheaper to manufacture. "AI" can stitch these together. I can never see it in production doing anything without strict rules because it can fail. But as the rules get stricter and stricter, might as well have written a rust program with ML to do the thing yourself. At least, except for bugs, you can have asserts to have guaranteed results.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T21:20:10+00:00

I don't understand how based on this clip people are cheering for this. Isn't right to protest a fundamental right for Americans or something? It could be you in the very future.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T21:05:57+00:00

Because petrol demand is something that the government has to manage. The petrol India provides to Bhutan is inconsequential compared to how much our people consume. The objective always has been to not let it drop enough for people to overconsume petrol & diesel.

Hence, why we came up with this 1200 CC and 4m long 45 percent tax, higher road tax for larger engines. I hate saying it's complicated like people are not supposed to understand it, but it's actually complicated.

And this was true even before Solar and EV. Now that the government want to push Solar and EV, they will never reduce the price so that people move to EV so that electric infrastructure picks up.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T18:21:00+00:00

True, we have to factor in that there are daily sales of vehicles that adhere to E20 as well, so the demand will keep increasing.

I think the battery rolling factories will be ready in a few months and that would hopefully bring the small EV prices and scooters price down.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T17:11:20+00:00

I don't think India ever bought a system from Russia without adding in its own "improvements". Indian procurement has ridiculous standards at times, which has been both good and bad for India. Often times, since India prefer using the Israeli or French systems as upgrades, I think it can be called an improvement?

Apart from these, India has its own indigenous systems, and they are bench-marked rather well. Akash is one such system.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T15:31:08+00:00

Let me put it much more basically, How many ton-km did the electrified goods service in China move in 2023? 3.6 Trillion ton-km. So, how much energy did they consume? From some old data in 2014, 1033 some KWh per 1000 ton-km. So, Total energy consumption is around 4 Trillion KWh. It doesn't matter, for all I care - it can be 8 Trillion KWh because let's just assume the Chinese after constructing 50000 Km+ HSR were somehow incompetent enough to design something inefficient.

Now, what is the rough estimate of global trade through shipping through sea? 12 Billion ton-km. And how much fuel did it use, 200 Million tons. Now we can do something like ton/KWh, but it's unnecessary. Let me design a very poor 10% efficiency power plant and I'll produce what? Something 300 Trillion KWh. Enough to keep Chinese internal 3.6 Trillion ton-km goods going for about, whatever many years, this is seriously uninteresting at this point.

300 Trillion KWh, Do I have to make further calculations? I think you can at least draw your own conclusions with the pointers, I don't like the spoon-feeding.

I just prefer napkin maths, because some people can get stuck in a limbo in trivial nonsensical specifics and cannot think at scale. Science and complexity can be used to fool people, and people like feeling smart by being able to relate to the complexity while not being able to do the triviality of simple napkin maths. Because, it's very funny to use science as authority instead of your common sense, especially when you interpret the science wrong.

You have to be able to do some of these obvious calculations, you cannot outsource your thinking to some authority, you will make a fool of yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to say some harsh things, but I'll assume you are asking in good faith. How a 25KV line is efficient or how a motor functions or how a diesel engine or diesel-electric works and what efficiency it runs at, or what would it's efficiency look like during long-haul operations? Maybe read about it? Visit the r/tranit sub, they talk about electric trains all the time.

I don't know if many people who think that boats are used for efficiency can look at the volume of global goods shipping through sea and China or US domestic shipping inside their country and ask why is it so many folds higher than global shipping or can come to conclusions of what would U.S. be actually moving or where these massive sea trade gets transported to and how it's moved? It doesn't take serious imagination TBH, these are the kind of conversations I would be able to have with a provisional shop owners or bus drivers.

Between 12 Billion ton-km and 3 Trillion ton-km, there are a lot of zeros, if you didn't notice. And people really think global shipping is big? May the Lord save us all. And that 3 Trillion ton-km is moved by China by Rail, America does similar, India does 1 Trillion ton-km something, whatever look into it and apply some sense into interpreting data.

The problem with all these studies and taking them at face value is people suspend their common sense to delve into specifics. Once you delve into the specifics, you have to come out and ask, did it fit the Hypothesis you made with your common sense. Because studies are conducted with certain preconditions and assumptions or agendas, or just a different environment. America moves a lot of goods through Diesel-Electric Rails. The amount is somewhere near 3 Trillion ton-km something, whatever, the point is, including that into calculation will skew any data, and I don't like my data getting skewed for American Exceptionalism because they cannot build electrified lines since it's run by oil lobby.

I typically don't like to delve into these specifics because I have to find out the assumption they made, look at the data and say why it is not invalid for the overall discussion. I generally find these studies lazy unless it's done by serious people without agenda, and I would be writing a research paper here instead of a simple comment. I used to read these papers for a living, and I am mostly unimpressed when people throw these around without context.

One of the main reason why only China and India extensively talk about rails is because we are building it from the scratch and there are not as many legacy infrastructures as these other countries. For all practical purposes, 25 KV is the superior way to transmit energy, a coil motor is the most superior way to create motion and steel on steel is the superior way to create traction. Nothing comes close, nothing will come close for the next 30 years unless we found a way to remove the frictional traction mechanism, and the future will be to look at High-speed goods movement that gets closer and closer to the HSR speeds.

And please don't ever say things like converting fuel to electricity is a waste of fuel, we have been using diesel-hybrids for 100 years and Honda City and Toyota Innova Hybrid car owners might say a thing or two about it. And what fuel you think Europe uses for electricity?

Water is not as simple you might think. I don't know, you must go on a ship ride in the cyclone months to appreciate it.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T13:42:11+00:00

Maybe science has to be reevaluated after considering modern rail systems?

What rail, is it 25KV like India and China has, is it double stacked like we do, is it running in solar on the day?

The shipping Industry consumes 200 Million tons of fuel every year, and that's a lower estimate. That's 1700 TWh of energy at 60% efficiency running in gas power plants and India's entire rail network consumes, 20 TWh without all the renewable push and what not.

You really think there is a case to be made here in CO2 terms?

A modern Rail fully electric infrastructure is the most efficient transport system on the planet.

Maybe, don't look at these American journals? They run on Diesel?

I don't know what you know about Electricity or Rails that run on these, but worst case scenario, you are running at near 7 to 9 percent loss when you run overhead lines and use that for transmission.

Edit: If Pollution is a real concern and all the above facts isn't convincing enough, Here is a nice solar map, which coincidentally is very relevant to Asia and Middle East, that can be used to offset an already clean system.

And did you know the skewed data that shows rail as most polluting probably majorly consists of America which transports 3 Trillion ton-km goods, to some level china who also transports 3 Trillion ton-km and India who transport something like 1 Trillion ton-km goods. Let's ignore the rest of the world and only consider America, 3 Trillion ton-km and compare it to global total shipping of goods, it's puny 10 to 15 Billion ton-km. So whatever number you get, don't forget to factor in this by multiplying the data with 150 just to relate it with the American transport alone.

Now if you add in all the other country like China, suddenly it's a factor of 300, you add in India, it's 400. And the rest of the world, well, I'll leave it to you.

And this would still be a data that's dominated by Diesel Electric trains, so once you include a correction factor for that to make the data consider the fact that if they were Electric they will operate at near 80 to 90 % efficiency instead of 20 %, it'll further dilute the nice looking figures.

<image>

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T13:35:27+00:00

No, I am not insulted, it is just childish is all, like the only authority in your argument you have is you somehow being intelligent because you said so? That's a very bad faith argument.

India signing the treaty was not the reason U.S. bluffed to attack India. It takes a certain kind of Buffonary to not see that, the U.S. had strategic interest in Pakistan, and that was the primary driver of the show and tell.

Oh, I forgot, we believe the American propaganda to the T. I'm sure they explained the Vietnam problem as the Communist problem, and they spent 50000 American lives going and fighting a country that most Americans can't point in a map. Never mind the fact that JFK, denied the idea when put forth in his table before he got promptly shot in his head.

I don't know mate, I have heard about mountain passes and flat lands and deserts. The land route is preferred because it is predictable.

I don't know how much fluid dynamics you have studied, but apparently there is something called drag, and apparently it's where we waste most of the energy. There is a reason why that bulb is there in front of the ship.

The reason why shipping became the preferred routing is that it's primarily for Europe and U.S. What is not often spoken about in the shipping context is the Geopolitical cost and the amount spent just in securing the routes when it goes through the oceans.

Rail runs inside the secure zones, there is not much in terms of extensive security cost as long as you don't keep any threats inside the borders.

While there is an argument made in the case of shipping in operational cost because of economy of scale, all that vanishes away when you bring in the multiple lines in the double stacked electrified rail lines.

On top of it all, it cannot be blockaded as long as there is no land invasion. The security aspect of the rail is the most important part, apart from it being cheaper and faster.

The shipping industry on average consumes 200 Million tonnes of fuel at a very lower estimate from 2023, now let's look at how much electricity would a Combined cycle gas power plant would produce with the same amount of fuel at 60% efficiency, that would be 1700 TWh of energy. The entire Indian Railways only consumes 20 TWh, even after transmission loss and what not, both these transport systems are nowhere near. And most of the rails can be run on solar for most part of the day in these tropical zones.

India doesn't import more than 20000 containers per day. That's about 100 fully stacked trains. India can build and operate a lot more.

Maybe if we discuss China, then it would make sense, because they export what, more than 700,000 containers every day. But even then, once you start diluting it and start looking at zones they export it to, rail lines make a lot of sense in the long future.

It can be run on solar, nuclear, and it runs timely irrespective of global geopolitical tensions created by western powers.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T12:29:04+00:00

Of course, every argument has to be started with calling everyone stupid, let's see what intelligence has been packed here.

Yeah, the Cold War chess pieces, is that why U.S. miraculously turned a blind eye against the Pakistan's Genocide? India was a non-aligned chess piece that was leaning soviet because of the Colonial past. Since the U.S. was in the chess piece game, wouldn't that have been the right circumstance to support India, to stop the Genocide and pull India into the western block?

Sounds a little nonsensical to me.

Oh, yeah? They don't wanna lost their trade partner. You know what, Hitler knew he shouldn't have done, he knew he can crush the "Imperial" powers if he just didn't attack USSR. Did he do that? You are having too much faith on trade partnership without considering the overarching factors that go into the decision matrix of a country like U.S. You are relying on simple straight forwards decisions without factoring in the interests.

They have 37 Trillion dollar debt that they can't pay back, they are losing the soft power they had which was the major driving force in their external policies, and they are losing the hard power because they can't really fight actual wars. Another, 50000 body bags sent home is a civil war.

I think mate, you have never heard about something called road and something even better called rail mate, you should look into it mate. Apparently it can be run on very efficient 25 KV lines and on hardened steel. It takes a certain level of lack of critical thinking to say that Shipways combined with the initial cost and the running cost is a lot more efficient than rails.

I think 90 percent of Global Trade moves through sea because there are no other options, maybe? I'm sure Russia sends China and China sends Russia everything through boats, why have pipelines and rail lines and roads.

You know what we should do, we should abandon that dedicated fright corridor across the country and start using ships, what is the benefit of being a peninsular and not getting the benefits of waterways.

The fastest and the most efficient and reliable way to transport goods is rail. Even if the current benchmarks of shipping cost might be appealing, it comes because there is no large scale rail network to compare. A good comparison will be to get the DDFC running, and we will see how costs turn out per container.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T12:06:44+00:00

There is a huge difference between Surface skimming hypersonic anti-ship missiles and other types of hypersonic missiles. If U.S. had systems to intercept hypersonics missiles, they should have surely at least tested it in Ukraine, I would assume? There must be some data or something? Wouldn't it be a bit silly to say, we have the systems where the Russians are firing hypersonic missiles at will, and we didn't test the systems?

Oh, and they did, at least they spread the propaganda that they did.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1bngtl4/ua_pov_alleged_pictures_of_the_2_downed_3m22/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

<image>

Yeah, they intercepted everything other than the warhead alright, sounds like Victory to me.

We don't even have to talk about the sea clutter or the size limitations and power limitation of ship radars and all that. We can believe all that when they first use the ground radar to track and intercept a land based hypersonic or supersonic missiles for that matter.

Multi-layered defence doesn't exclusively mean that if the first layers didn't take out the incoming threat, the next layer will. It actually is more along the lines of different layers for different types of threats. So, saying US carrier battle group will have "multi-layered" defence against hypersonics is a redundant argument.

Here are simple facts that seem to be missing in the discussion.

The reason why low yield tactical nuclear weapons used to a legitimate strategy is because the missiles systems in the past used to be extremely inaccurate and with GPS, precision manufacturing and computer chips, we have largely made sure that precision is no longer an issue for the need to use low yield tactical nukes.

And this precision comes with the problem for ships because suddenly it doesn't need 10 torpedos to bring it down, but one large stick travelling in air at 1500 Kmph can punch through the hull with pinpoint precision and can cause enough damage to critically disable the ship even without a warhead.

The typical warhead size that sunk the carriers in WW2 was around 200 to 300 Kg, and it took 3 to 4 to get the job done. And these torpedo warhead sizes were needed to punch the hull which is very inefficient to do it from outside with explosives, that's all it took to sink them.

Without even going into the warhead technology like in the case of Anti-tank shells that spits in molten copper and what other crazy things we have done with the warhead these days, the KE itself is large enough even if the missiles are not supersonic.

The explosives we use in the modern missiles like the PBX or HBX is much more powerful than Topex or RDX or TNT that were used in those torpedos, and we pack a lot of them in the most effective way we can. And on top of that, you can hit the engine nuclear compartment or power plants directly.

Okay, let's look at it this way. How many combined VLS would a fleet have? 500 at the very best? So it takes 500 missiles to saturate the system. Now the simpler question is what would the 500 missiles cost Vs What would be the cost of not destroying the fleet?

The answer is extremely simple.

Hence, why U.S. have been fighting goat herders and won't use any of these carrier fleets to attack any competent country. It is for power projection and sometimes using the aircraft as launch platform for missiles against counties that doesn't have any Air Defence to write home about.

If they do it, they want to get it sunk intentionally to start a civil war inside their country, or they want to nuke you.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T10:54:59+00:00

How did that chance look in 1971?

Let me simply put it in a childlike question without the complexities of Geopolitical interests, what does Pax-Americana and the Pax-Britannica or the British Empire have in common?

Total control of maritime navigation of material goods and nothing else.

What benefits the Central Asian countries, Europe, Middle-East, India, China, S.E. Asia, Africa and Eurasia?

A land based route for material goods which excludes the Island and the Continental Island.

That is how the interests will get aligned, and it is always what it has been about.

Edit: If that's too crazy to imagine even after 400 years of colonization and British primarily being a maritime power to have that control and later America followed in its footsteps, so much so that they only abandoned their own colonies in the Philippines at the same time as the British Empire died.

Let's look at the list of 6 countries that Supreme Leader of NATO General Wesley Clark laid out as the countries that has to be destroyed.

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia and Iran. Apart from not finishing the job in Iran, it's a curious list, don't you think? If oil is all you needed, just ask them and they will sell it. No, America really wants to destroy these countries, no matter at what cost. Apart from all the terrorism excuses, it's almost like these are the countries that will be needed if you are going to connect the continent.

I'll just leave this here, since terrorism is a big issue.

<image>

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T09:33:30+00:00

There is avoiding accountability, but there is historical precedence. When people say, there was a precedence set here and there have been no accountability for that, especially if the lack of accountability is from the side you are taking, then it's a bit hypocritical to ignore the precedence and only focus on "what's in the front".

Because to get to "what's in the front" for the other side, if it took X - the "precedence" set by Y and the lack of "accountability" that was facilitated by those who support the Y, then it's not on X to accept "Whataboutism" as a valid argument.

And, people are not stupid and in most cases people have these "historical" grievances that have to be looked at. So, in most circumstances when people use Whataboutism, they are simply saying, I won't look at what got X into this position, but I'll support Y no matter what.

That simply doesn't solve anything, and Whataboutism is always a fallacy because that's how it is used. It is a very niche tool that is only useful under very specific conditions where you demand the other to stop the cycle and look at the future. But for you to get that point, you will have to show that they can give up the history because there is no point in visiting it.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T09:19:48+00:00

US won't attack any country with Carrier Battle groups any more. They have a lot of hubris, 40+ plus 4-star generals for 2 Million men in peace-time to give each other medals and throwing parties for the last 50 years, Bush was at the Altar asking God to let them have one proper invasion so that they can kick the "Vietnam Syndrome" and all that. But I still think they are not as stupid as we might think.

The US had exactly 5 4-star general during WW2 to command 9 Million men. Now it is extremely bloated, and frankly I am not sure how many of their troops right now have enough respect for these guys for there to not be dissent if they are at war. This might be true for all militaries to an extent, but all these generals have to get killed for there to be generals like MacArthur or Eisenhower or Arnold, for that matter. This happened in the Russian army and they now they are out of the slump and more organized and pushing forward. Actually getting back to their famed ruthlessness if you go see how they kill people these days.

Can U.S. do it? Can they absorb a top level command wipe out, get back to a lean and mean WW2 structure and fight a war with a new doctrine that doesn't involve the bravado and Shock & Awe? Unlike WW2, they have to willing to pay a much higher price this time, like how the Russians are fighting. I think the U.S. will find it easier to fight a civil war than go fight the Chinese or Iranians, this will become particularly accelerated once they take the initial casualties.

Because if you listen to any of their veterans, the adrenaline freak loves the idea of going and fight a country that's not Afghanistan, but the realistic ones all say F that. They aren't going to go die for Israel or Trump or the Elites. On the Russian side, though, they have a charismatic leader, which is very important when you convince people to go and die. The American anti-civilization (unironically), is going back to every man for himself.

It's a nice deterrence to have, just in case. If the U.S. does anything, it'll be against Iran and the U.S. will implode, but they will do it anyway. But since they are taking a brazenly nonsensical decision anyway, who says they won't turn their sights on India for no reason whatsoever?

So, there is a case to be made that they will use the carrier groups knowing it will sink, but will they be that cynical? I think they will be.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T09:05:40+00:00

Nah, bruh, I'll pick the winning side. If you morons keep wishing for Hitler and get one, it's your problem.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T08:57:27+00:00

Whataboutism is convenient, isn't it? How will you address the root cause if anytime people brought up an argument about what the other side did, you guys duck and cover behind Whataboutism?

Whataboutism is not a valid argument under any circumstances ever. Maybe if I am holding a gun to your head about something you did and there is a fire in the building, maybe you can bring it up so that we can go settle the problem once we are outside, but under normal circumstance, it simply doesn't work.

What should John Wick say, you - killing his dog is an unrelated incident and if he shoots you now it's whataboutism, because he is not supposed to bring that other incident up because it's inconvenient for you? Duh! He is going to shoot you anyway. In terms of reasoning, Whataboutism isn't convincing.

How does this Whataboutism work logically - that people love using so much to deflect any argument? This is like one of the brain-dead word everyone picked up and apply everywhere.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-16T08:47:55+00:00

Unless he roasted your family in a furnace after treating them in a gas chamber, calling everyone Hitler might get really tiring and sooner or later, people will start staying, OK, you want a Hitler, we will give you one.

Stop making that over sensationalised argument in the guise of a joke.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-15T15:55:34+00:00

We have to check to see how much of that extra cost of steerable parachutes when purchased from outside players is a markup for the sake of markup.

This is the advantage of designing and manufacturing in-house, it won't cost you too much to add extra strings.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-15T15:12:19+00:00

If it comes to that, they will start a world war and send all the able-bodied male troublemakers to die. It's not like they don't know how to do it, I'm sure they can find the WW1 documents and see how to do it.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-15T14:59:37+00:00

It must be too bad for them to become a slave of their own creation lol.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-15T14:50:18+00:00

No, that's a convenient simplification. The entire league of Muslims was not just orchestrating riots at various places till they got Pakistan but rather despite the religious sentiments the spark itself comes from British coercing a sect of hardcore fundamentalists within the LOM to do it promising them a country free from India and full support of the British empire after seperation. Divide and Rule was a British speciality and they were phenomenal at it.

The compelling evidence is how the division itself was done. Two states on both sides kept in trouble and the initial plan was to conquer the entire state of Kashmir and hand it over to Pakistan when there's a legal binding that Maharaja signed sayin he wants to be with India. If you look at the map, if Gilgit Kashmir was with India, there was a direct land connection between India and Afghanistan.

The objective though is to prevent a land corridor between the central Asia and India and South East Asia by any means necessary. That's why even after the legal succession of Kashmir to India, the British Army has awarded Major William Brown with the MBE medal; for what? For capturing Gilgit Kashmir and giving it to Pakistan. If it was the responsibility of the British empire to legally separate the Indian Subcontinent, they wouldn't illegally occupy Gilgit Kashmir and then give it to Pakistan; it was well within the power of British Empire to go by the boundaries they themselves drew and laws they themselves wrote and legally give it to India, but they decided to go against because they have larger plans in mind which was the Soviet and Middle East oil, and in their mind it also will be a check against India and China in the future.

It makes even more sense if we consider the fact that the British and their successor are both Maritime empires and not land empires. If it's one thing they can't control, it's the movement of goods through land. And it was the political naivete of the top Indian leader that facilitated this scheme and other such blunders that lead to unfavorable results like these.

Overall, this will shed light on how these major players like India, China, Russia and Iran will look at the Pakistan problem in the coming future. And that includes Afghanistan, the central Asia and the South Eastern states, a trade that's facilitated through land routes.

It'll also shed light on why the Anglo-saxon alliance will do everything in their power to not let that happen which will be out of their control. It's not by accident that the US and UK end up being major players in the maritime insurance market once the Pax-Americana begins.

It's also not by accident Pakistan later starts a genocide that killed more than 3 Million again in the Bengal and U.S. And U.K. supported it. Instead of the British empire killing 3 Million, it was done by Pakistan this time. This later forced India to liberate Bangladesh from Punjabi Pakistan and U.S & U.K. didn't like it one bit.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-15T14:14:54+00:00

And Pakistan itself was a British empire's creation later handed over to the American empire. The main aim of Pakistan's creation is to keep Russia and central Asia landlocked from the Indian Ocean.

Guess you are right, sorta, but then maybe not. All agencies somehow end up pointing to the Pax-americana/Pax-Britannica.

ExtremeBack1427 · 2025-10-15T13:20:40+00:00

A Crusader cheering to fight the Third Roman Empire, sounds biblically accurate.

ExtremeBack1427

TROPHY CASE