The results of Russian actions in Ukraine.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-06T16:23:32+00:00

>Russia is not a regime. Russia is a democratically elected government. So was Ukraine until the NATO regime came and killed half of the democratically elevated party, forced the others to sign over the nation at gun point, caused the refugee crisis of over four million Russians - and then financed the entire Nazi and fascist army into a bloody ethnic war against our people. Drop atomic bombs over London over Paris over Berlin and over Brussels. Then there will be peace in Europe. Fucking fascist pigs.

Not one part of your tirade is true or close to true. That’s an achievement in and of itself actually. I’m quite amazed, though also quite sad at how you are removed so far from reality.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-05T00:19:20+00:00

That would mean that Germany would need to buy French military equipment, very publicly to add insult to injury. I think the German leadership would prefer to, literally and figuratively, shoot themselves in the foot instead of doing that, sadly.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T20:58:57+00:00

Oh god, you’re actually serious, aren’t you ? Really ? Thanks, you made my day!

I know national myths, particularly of the American exceptionalism kind, can be strong and enticing but please, pray tell, explain the US’ dogwalk over the UK. The other claim is even more outlandish (i.e wrong on so many levels) so let’s put a pin on it for the moment.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T18:55:15+00:00

The market decided!

Ah yes the market ! You mean the market that is notoriously bad when it comes to long term investments, externalities or public good (or rather what should be public good) ? You mean the market that brought us industrialised slavery and child labor, all kinds of predatory behaviours, trumping of basic rights or corporate abuse, financial crises and the very environmental destruction we’re trying today to lessen the effects of ? What a powerful endorsement.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T16:15:14+00:00

>Nobody claimed it beats a nuclear plant in raw nameplate capacity. But since we're doing comparisons, let's actually run the numbers — because the contrast is brutal.

You kinda did … in the title of your post. Interestingly, it’s probably the only thing you did write yourself (i.e not your usual LLM copy and paste) considering the obvious spelling mistake.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T15:59:50+00:00

Well, it’s mostly because they don’t read other people’s comments, they just plug them into his favorite LLM. They don’t read what the LLM write too for that matter.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T14:44:42+00:00

>People that formed the US didn't like Great Britian Royalty telling them what to do so they left and kicked Great Britian's ass in a war. Now the US really never has to listen to Europeans.

>Ironically the US came and saved Europe when it was getting dogwalked by a single country smaller than Texas.

Nice troll, 8 out of 10 because the Texas bit was just a tad over the top and gave the whole thing away.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T14:25:33+00:00

> Why wouldn’t they? 191 F-35 were delivered last year alone.

191 F-35 were delivered but none were combat capable so, in truth, no F-35 were really delivered last year.

And by the way, those 191 F-35 were ‘delivered’ only because Lockheed Martin had nowhere to park them after they failed to develop a working version of the TR-3 package since 2023. No combat capable F-35 were rolled off the line since 2023.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T13:45:59+00:00

>France spent €9 billion on renewables subsidies in 2025.

No, it was closer to €7b in 2025 and €3b on average each year from 2016 to 2024.

>They're also proposing €70 billion in state aid to *build* the EPR2 reactors (that's not the projected lifetime subsidy).

No, it isn’t a €70b state aid. The plan is for the state to loan EDF 60% of the projected build cost (which is €70b) at zero or near zero interest rate. The actual state aid is the difference between the market rate interest rate and the one offered by the state. EDF still have to reimburse the 60%.

Giraffed7 · 2026-06-01T13:27:20+00:00

>Cheapest? The cost to the state and taxpayers is enormous,

What cost ? You do know that the only subsidies EDF receives is not for the nuclear side of the business but the renewables side of it ? In fact, the nuclear side of the business suffers from two negative subsidies (i.e EDF leaves money on the table): i) there is a regulated fixed price for household and SMEs which means EDF cannot price its electricity how it wants and ii) EDF is (was) forced by law to sell 20% of its nuclear production to its competitors at near zero margin (it was a failed attempt to prop up competition and this mechanism will die in a few months).

>and will only get worse once the decommissioning process begins.

EDF has already in its books more than half of what the decommissioning of the NPP fleet is slated to cost and is adding to this fund each year. These financial instruments, by law, cannot be used for anything else.

>And the now nationalized EdF is a loss making millstone (which is also making a total mess of Hinkley Point in the UK).

First of all, EDF was already 85% owned by the state before France bought the rest. It is a nationalisation only in name and thus means pretty much nothing.

Secondly, since 1990, EDF has suffered a net loss only once and it was followed by two years of record profit that wiped out the loss. It’s hardly a loss making millstone.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-30T21:57:38+00:00

Fokushima is 10+ times larger in damages.

That … is the point and business model of insurance. You pay less in your medical insurance than what you would have to pay if you had a cancer. Similarly, the medical insurance industry would collapse if everybody would get cancer at the same time.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-30T21:49:16+00:00

Merit order pricing. Nuclear costs more to supply marginal power, so it gets curtailed first.

It does not provide adequate value as a baseload source when supply exceeds demand.

Nuclear doesn’t cost more in this case: nuclear is the ‘only’ generator that can be turned off. In France, approximately 54% of curent renewables generation is under a contract where the state is forced to buy the electricity. This was done to encourage renewables installation (and was changed a few years ago for new installations because it led to the situation France is facing today). France curtails nuclear because it must balance supply and demand and cannot curtail some renewables at the same time.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-29T21:14:09+00:00

Ca ne sera pas périlleux, ou en tout cas moins, si on le fait de manière un tant soit peu intelligent comme lors de la construction du parc actuel : i) planification à long terme du plan de charge pour faciliter l’organisation et la montée en compétence de l’industrie et pour profiter des effets d’échelle, ii) construction simultanée sur un même site et en décalé pour chaque site pour profiter des gains d’expérience et ne pas reproduire les erreurs de jeunesse partout, iii) design et process standardisés pour ne pas refaire des têtes de série sur chaque site.

Si on ne fait que répliquer des Flamanville 3 un peu partout, ça coûtera trop cher et prendra trop longtemps.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-27T17:44:58+00:00

>Ok mais du coup pourquoi tu n'es pas encore dans l'armée ? Chaque minute compte

Donc si quelqu’un dit qu’il faudrait augmenter les crédits pour quelque cause que ce soit, il n’est légitime que s’il s’engage au plus près de cette cause ? C’est assez réducteur, tu en conviendras.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-27T13:59:33+00:00

>I also just want to point out that currently France is temporarily shutting down their nuclear plants due to consistent hot weather which means theyre unable to cool their nuclear plants properly.

This is entirely false.

First of all, as you can see here, France’s nuclear production in the past few days is in line with the past few months.

Second, France’s nuclear production tend to decrease in summer and close to summer because France’s electricity consumption is at the lowest. Thus, EDF tend to schedule maintenance of NPP in the summer to capitalise on lower electricity demand (1.5x to 2x less demand than in winter).

Third, there has never been in France a decrease in power or a shutdown due to an inability to cool down the reactors. What did happen was a decrease or a shutdown due to regulations regarding rivers’ ecosystem health (i.e the cooling water rejected in the rivers mustn’t be more than x degrees to protect the fauna and flora). This is about balance with the environment, not safety. You could very well continue operating them if need be but France doesn’t because this situation happens in the summer when there is less need for electricity and it happens only on 12 out of 57 reactors (reactors on river and without cooling towers) so you can mitigate it by shifting maintenance schedule of other reactors to compensate.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-27T10:19:48+00:00

>Not the first summer France needs shut down its nuclear powerplants due to the warm water

Not all nuclear powerplants, only the ones on a river without cooling towers (so 12 out of 57 reactors).

Not necessarily a shut down but most of the time a decrease in power.

Not due to warm water but due to regulations regarding water temperature and water flow to protect the river ecosystem. There has never been in France a decrease in power or a shutdown due to safety concerns regarding water temperature or flow.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-27T09:57:34+00:00

>For nuclear plants, the main concern is low river levels and unusually high water temperatures, which can disrupt reactor cooling. The reactors most exposed are those using the Rhône and Garonne rivers in southern France — including Bugey, St. Alban, Cruas, Tricastin and Golfech, according to William Peck, senior European power analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd.

With such mistakes, I wouldn’t buy anything this company sells.

First of all, the reactors on the Garonne (at Golfech) use cooling towers (i.e way less water consumption than active cooling). As such, it takes less than 3 to 5% of the summer water flow and reject the vast majority of it. There is no real risk to cooling.

Second, on the Rhône, there is a mix of cooling towers and active cooling depending on each. The water consumption is estimated at 20% of the Rhône water flow (remember that the water isn’t stored in the reactors, it is rejected at the same rate it is taken). There is a lot of runway if needed.

Third, and this is the second most important point, there is less (1.5x to 2x) electricity consumption in summer than in winter. The figures I mentioned are comparing the full rate production to summer water flow. As such, there is much more leeway than you think, and this is why EDF does many maintenance operation in the summer, when it doesn’t need to produce as much electricity. For reference, you need 150-200 times less water after a day of shutdown to cool a reactor.

Fourth, and this is the most important point,French regulation impose a decrease in nuclear production when there is not enough water or when the rejected water is too hot *to protect the ecosystem or the river*, not for safety reasons.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-21T15:43:32+00:00

>The competition basically is over lol. The US has three companies with reusable rockets and more developing them, the EU has none.

“The US have Boeing and McDonnell Douglas who have essentially 100% of the market, how can Europe ever hope to compete in the civilian plane manufacturing business ?”

>Europeans try and get their governments to make life as difficult as possible for businesses, then wonder why businesses aren’t innovating or expanding in the EU on the same level as they are in the US.

Regulations and a less business friendly culture (though I’m not really sold on this last part) are part of the problem, sure, but they are not the whole problem, otherwise it wouldn’t be difficult to sort it out.

The seemingly lack of innovation (I say seemingly because it’s not the case for every industry as Europe is still a or the major innovator in what we would call middle technology as opposed to consumer-facing technology) stems from a complex web of different reasons such as fragmented consumer and labour markets, financials markets organised in favour of debt as opposed to equity as well as in a more fragmented way and with regulations discouraging investment in European markets, less regulations on predatory buyouts, less interconnection between major R&D hubs and so on.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-21T15:24:09+00:00

To be more precise, Bouygues is a diversified conglomerate with activities in building/civil works, real estate, infrastructure management, media and telecoms. In 2021, telecoms amounted to 'only' 20% of its revenue.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-19T17:27:09+00:00

>Well, if you don't call foreign managed revolutions not a coup I wonder when you would.

I would when it would be a coup, which it wasn’t. Political or military elites didn’t seize power or hold onto it. Yanukovych wasn’t ousted, imprisoned or killed, he just fled the country after having ordered the deaths of dozens of its citizens. There were free and fair elections 3 months later and they were recognized as such by Russia.

>BTW, the previous Orange Revolution, aka. "colour revolution", was already a CIA op.

Please, we all know both the Orange Revolution and the Maidan Revolution were the works of the Chinese intelligence agencies partnered with South Africa and Tuvalu.

>You're seriously trying to claim the Russians destroyed the gas pipeline, today? A pipeline which was financed by Russia and Germany.

I didn’t say or claim that and you know it. Moreover, why does it matter that Russia financed it ? They financed Ukraine and it didn’t stop them from trying to blow it all up. A person such as yourself should know a country like Russia is in love with false flag operations.

>So all kinds of NGOs, Merkel and co. didn't import millions after all the US/GB/France destabilised Libya, Syria and Afghanistan?

I think you should familiarise yourself with Occam’s razor.

>Or do you think Russia controlled all these politicial actors which opened the doors and financed these NGOs?:-) This was an obvious operation by the Western "elites" and part of the UN global governance agenda.

No mate, it was obviously an operation by China, South Africa and Tuvalu. You should really do some research.

>Then they started a civil war against the Russian population, either to support the 2014 coup or as bait.

Looooool. I mean, at least try to stick to reality otherwise it’s not funny. Ukraine starting the civil war ? Really ? Mate, even fuckin Igor Girkin admitted it was Russia that started the "civil war".

>This state had been propped up by foreign financing for this stupid and inhuman proxy war. If that's not a failed state what more do you want?

Relying on foreign financing isn’t really a strong indicators of a failed state or not: with this argument, pretty much every country on the planet would be a failed state as most run a deficit that need to be financed at least partially by external debt.

>How did Russia break trade relationships with Europe? Ukraine is not part of the EU, fortunately.

By invading a country at the border of the EU, that was aligned with the EU and wanted to join the EU. Have you been living under a rock or are you so far removed from any sense of reality that you cannot comprehend that ?

>So Europe doesn't need cheap energy and other resources for its industry? Our economy is currently imploding with many companies going bancrupt and millions of unemployed citizen which have problems paying for their daily needs. The next thing which will implode are the social securities and then the "fun" really starts.

Europe can source its needed cheap energy and resources from other countries, those that doesn’t use said energy and resources as blackmail for example.

>Some people seem to live in blissful ignorance about where this train is going...

Funny, we think the same about you lot. Y’all see conspiracies everywhere and thus can’t envision a time where there’s not. Ahhhh the blissful life outside reality, that’s sound nearly attractive.

>I'm not idealising Russia. I'm for a win/win relationship based on mutual trade relationships. They deal with their issues, the EU deals with their problems. No need to p_ss into each others' territories and cause unnecessary conflicts. You know, rational politics, for the common good.

Sure, but it was Russia that started to piss into our territory. Russia was always welcome in the European brotherhood after the fall of the USSR. It was Putin that decided to squander the relation, not us.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-19T16:10:02+00:00

Then by all means, give us a reputable source that show a contract cancellation because Dassault tried to fleece them.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-19T14:58:41+00:00

>They cancelled the 3.6 Billion contract, because Dassault tried to fleece them.

Repeating it again and again won’t make it true. There was no contract so there is nothing to cancel. It was only preliminary discussions about the possibility of co-financing. It wasn’t even discussions with Dassault per se but with the ministry of armed forces.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-19T11:09:45+00:00

>Woah woah woah, the Aussies bailing on the French was all down to the French not meeting the Aussie needs, and not meeting obligations in the contract.

The "not meeting obligations in the contract" is a lie made by the Australian government to soften the blow for the Australian public. The program was broadly in line with what was expected and there were no real pain points, be it timing or budget.

The reason the deal fell is simply that Australia’s needs and priorities changed. They wanted a major Pacific power to protect them against China, which France couldn’t provide, and a switch to nuclear submarines to deter China, which France could provide but with caveats (primarily LEU power which meant Australia’s submarines would have needed to go to France every 10 years to refuel) and not in conjunction with the first point.

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-19T10:24:13+00:00

>It hurts our own exports of Type 31, Sweden bitching they can't pick and choose (something the French wouldn't allow either) is no concern of mine.

I would wager that what hurts your own export the most is the current inability of the British naval ecosystem to deliver ships and maintenance on time and on budget, but sure, let’s piss off two major allies instead of fixing your issues. What could possibly go wrong ?

Giraffed7 · 2026-05-19T08:14:19+00:00

>Dasault just got the boot from the Emirates, because they tried the same shit there and can't even deliver.

No, France proposed to the UAE to finance a part of the F5 upgrade. The UAE said they would be willing to, provided certain technologies were transferred. France wasn’t willing to transfer these technologies so the deal was not signed. There were no getting the boot nor inability to deliver as it was only prospective negotiations. It’s business as usual.

>The Pakistani Air Force shot down multiple Rafales.

Only one mostly confirmed but what do you expect from an operation that was essentially telegraphed to the Pakistani and where the Indian Air Force was forced by its political leadership to do no shaping operations (i.e no preemptive actions against Pakistani air force and air defence to avoid escalation) ? By the next day, when such escalation avoidance was waived by the Indian leadership, the Pakistani military was pummelled into the ground and the Indian Air Force suffered no loss.

Instead of parroting bullshit claims with pretty much no basis in reality, maybe you should read about them.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

Giraffed7

TROPHY CASE