> But what this report does not do is to provide anything concrete.

It is, this foundation is writing publications in France target to french citizen with germany money.

The Ecole de Guerre Economique argue theses funding are targeted.

> There is absolutely not proof that any of this had any impact whatsoever.

Proving that a political campaign had an effect is impossible, especially if the one running the campaign don't want to know they are doing it on purpose.

> At the same time as these publications, France government was very pro-nuclear, which is rather a proof that inference from Germany had few to no impact.

This statements right there shows:

- you don't know how propaganda works

- you don't know the political context of what i'm talking about: the french governement at this time was not pro-nuclear, they kept the line of the previous governement and followed the 50% nuclear target. The current governement adopted a pro-nuclear stance since around the energy crisis.

- You are critizing someone telling them they are out of breadth and the first thing you do is critizing the report of one of the best school in competitive intelligence.

> are all pretty uninfluencal on the situation while conveniently "forgetting" the other reasons

I think you are completely unaware of how the politics works and how they affect the real world.
I pointed politicals problems, which cause problems you point as "typical reasons given for recent difficulties".

> some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f.

> (some nice summary of the reasons: https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f... I'm sure you can cherry-pick stuff, but they explain that the drop of expertise was because of a global drop on industrial jobs for an increase of service jobs and was not at all limited to nuclear. It also affected the automotive industry, for example)

The Financial Time is highly biased, your article is also behind a paywall, the main reason for the loss of expertise is because of the lack of investment in nuclear in the past.
This is what says the EDF CEO here in front of the french deputies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91h-2fT2w8

> You know what an analogy is, right?

Yes, and your usage of it is manipulative. An analogy is used to illustrate, you are using it to depicting your interlocutor as an idiot.

> Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't need to scream "source" each time the other interlocutor does not bring a source,

Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't start a conversation by saying their interlocutor is very "uneducated". Then follows with a graph that finish in 2019 as a source for a projection for 2024.

> And as you can see, projection for 2024 are again dropping w.r.t to 2023. So, yes, the conclusion from the article is still correct.

There is no data past 2019 in your graph.

> What? No its not. It's due to budget and short-term vision.

It is, let me explain you why: the politicians sets the budget, the short term vision, is also sets by the politics.

- Hollande, which was elected with an alliance of the Socialist Party, and the Greens, have set a target to reduce nuclear from 75% to 50%, EDF had to reduce the budget for nuclear due to that.

- Penly 3 was cancelled due to the above line.

- Superphénix, was closed because of the anti-nuclear activists, and the politics bow to this minority.

- Sarkozy, before Hollande, while not being anti nuclear, under-invested in the energy sector, which was needed to correct the course.