> 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.

Yeah, so they wanted to hide it but have been explicitly stating their funding on their second page?

Again, look at all the publications in this list, they are all open about their funding, nothing is hidden.

> - you don't know how propaganda works

You don't. You are saying that ANY publications with funding from Germany is propaganda. My point is that it's obviously stupid: some of them may be, some of them will not be.

You can find pro-nuclear publications funded by other foreign foundations. Is that propaganda? If yes, why are you saying that anti-nuclear propaganda is the reason it failed while not saying the pro-nuclear propaganda is the reason some stuffs that should have failed did not?

> - you don't know the political context of what i'm talking about: the french governement at this time was not pro-nuclear

It was certainly not anti-nuclear, and that's the point. You are pretending that the situation in France is due to the fact that Germany made a successful propaganda campaign that destroyed the French nuclear sector. This is obviously not what happened because the government was not influenced by this so-called propaganda campaign, otherwise they would not have done what they have done.

> - 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.

If all you know about the situation is what you get from an organism that is short-sighted to their small area of expertise, then, yes, you are out of breadth.

> I think you are completely unaware of how the politics works and how they affect the real world.

But again (and you haven't answered about that), if the french situation is due to politics, then why the Energiewende failure is not due to politics?

That's my point about the bias. You are doing a typical ultimate attribution error: the side that you like, when it does not perform well, it's because it's the victim of external actors, but the side you don't like, when it does not perform well, it's the proof that it's intrinsically flawed.

> The Financial Time is highly biased

Ah. So, Ecole de Guerre Economique is perfect (even if it was several times criticized for promoting a biased view of the world), but FT is "highly" biased. Not just "biased", no, "highly biased".

You are asking for sources and when there are, you just reject them super easily by saying "nope, does not count".

> This is what says the EDF CEO here in front of the french deputies

The guy WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE ORGANISM THAT FAILED. You are taking for granted the opinion of a person who is deeply not impartial. Of course the CEO of EDF will blame the failure on others.

(and don't get me wrong, what the CEO says is interesting, but at the time, I recall some insiders mentioned to me that it was not very accurate. Again, no source for that because it was just chat, you can not believe me if you want, but it is to illustrate that I'm not just choosing the CEO to be unreliable just because I like it that way, but because there is some reason for it)

And then you are saying that FT is biased. That's so ridiculous, you just pick and choose who is biased or not based on what is convenient for you.

> Normal intellectually honest interlocutors don't start a conversation by saying their interlocutor is very "uneducated"

From the guy who just said that I don't understand propaganda and the french political situation. Are you really sure you want to use this argument, because it does not make yourself look very good, you know.

> There is no data past 2019 in your graph.

Correct, that's not the graph I've used before. But again, when I checked, 2024 did not magically make the French reduction totally disappear (at best it means that the reduction was very slightly smaller, not changing at all the message).

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

No, it is due to the strategy of allocating the budget inside EDF. They made explicit choice about not renewing their expertise, they drop local partnership for no good reason. In fact, they move the expertise to other countries for budget reason, and would have done so whatever budget they had. Same with automotive industry: delocalization to cheaper working countries.

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

And of course, the incredible excessive costs have nothing to do with that.

Again, that's so biased: if someone choose to close a nuclear plant, there is for you only one unique possible explanation: anti-nuclear.

Can you even conceive that, maybe, someone may not do exactly as you like not because they are anti-nuclear, but just because, sometimes, they have other reasons?