Here is the original video from the interview with Michal Rubin from where the clip was made(I have linked the relevant timestamp):
https://youtu.be/HhjtGyFWhXY?feature=shared&t=227
So no it is not scam AI generated clip as you claim .... but let me know if you need Rubin's other interviews where he has commented on the war and is generally very scathing. Also go through other links I posted. Read the 1st link from John Spencer which is a short summary of the war ... here is the crucial tib-bit from that article:
India’s overwhelming success demonstrated something more enduring than airpower. It validated a national defense doctrine built around efficient domestic industrial strength. And most significantly, it delivered a clear message to its strategic rival. Pakistan— a Chinese Proxy by Armament alignment, doctrine—was completely outmatched. Its Chinese-made air defense systems could not stop, detect, or deter India’s precision strikes. In Sindoor, India didn’t just win. It demonstrated overwhelming military superiority against a Chinese-backed adversary.
I have read that report it is more than a month old now and there has been lot more evidence that has slowly come out ( see other videos and links that I have posted )
But even from that stimson article here are the important tidbits:
------
"Having perhaps struggled with the counter air environment on May 7, India’s achievement on May 9-10 is impressive by any measure. Details of the operation are still limited, but the Indian Air Force reportedly used a mix of decoy drones and anti-radiation drones, like Harop, alongside an array of longer-range standoff weapons, including cruise missiles such as BrahMos and SCALP, as well as solid-propellant rockets like the Israeli-origin Crystal Maze and Rampage missiles. Prior Indian drone attacks may have weakened Pakistani defenses as well, both through direct damage to components and through operational changes that Pakistani air defenders may have taken to reduce emissions and hence vulnerability to anti-radiation munitions.
India’s complex, innovative attack on May 10 appears largely to have overcome Pakistani air defenses. Whatever counterair surprises Pakistan had on May 7 did not appear to have had recurrent success on May 10. There are signs of BrahMos and SCALP debris in Pakistan, perhaps indicating some of the planned strikes did not succeed. The lack of visible damage in any satellite imagery released to date of Rafiqui base may also indicate that that strike did not go as intended. At the same time, an official Pakistan Air Force briefing on May 11—which contained inaccuracies in other claims it made—did specifically highlight success in defending Rafiqui base against Indian attacks
.......
.......
Despite Pakistan’s claims of “major damages” at the 15 airbases it targeted,
there is no visual evidence—either from social media photos or commercial satellite imagery—currently available to indicate meaningful damage on Indian facilities
.......
.......
After the sharp escalation of hostilities on May 9-10, the twin combination of military pressure and international persuasion—perhaps combined with Pakistan’s sense that it had struck back and proven its point—was enough for Pakistan to opt to halt the crisis.
Pakistani interest is evident in the persistent DGMO calls. Yet, if India truly felt that it had a decisive military upper hand, New Delhi could have opted to press forward. Perhaps it even deliberated doing so. Yet India, too, apparently calculated the political advantages of further strikes were not worth the continued persistence of a costly and dangerous crisis. Both sides accepted the US-facilitated ceasefire.
"
