Antoine Mouchamps

Student and Researcher at the University of Liège in Energy Engineering ⚡️.

Interested in AI 🤖, Nuclear Energy ☢️, Geopolitics 🌐 & Defense ⚔️.

[Princertitude @princertitude]

1 700 salariés chinois construisent l’usine de batteries Stellantis-CATL en Espagne
https://t.co/Cm9RrPS3J7

[KNDS France @KNDS_France]

KNDS annonce le lancement du #CAESAR chenillé.

Plus d'informations sur : https://t.co/kExhWRz1ve

#WeAreKNDS

[Seva @SevaUT]

this is going to be a huge inconvenience for russian security services

[Antoine Mouchamps @Ex983]

Always a pleasure to share an evening with the Smart Grids Lab !

[Damien ERNST @DamienERNST1]

Annual dinner of my research group at the University of Liège .
I am so full of admiration for all these young clever people who want to push further the boundaries of knowledge for a better world.
Here is a link to all our scientific publications:
https://t.co/isccBAfmek

Many thanks also to Marc Carnevale from Les Sabots d'Hélène for welcoming us so well in its restaurant.

On the picture : Edouard Princen, Pascal Leroy, Maurizio Vassallo, Lize Pirenne, Raphael Fonteneau, Bardhyl Miftari, Céline Metz, Antoine Mouchamps, Antoine Larbanois, Victor Dachet, Anthony Maio, Julien Hansen, Thibaut Techy, Ahmed Tayachi, Guillaume Derval, Thomas Richard, Julien Di Renzo, Arthur Malherbe, Adrien Bolland, Matthias Pirlet, Pierre Counotte, Loris Bigatton, Julien Brandoit, Gaspard Lambrechts, Antoine Mouchamps,
Samy Aittahar, Martin Schoors, Guy Langenaeken, Titah Khaled Raouf
Oussama Chaouch, Robin Gaspari,
Elias Ernst, Alireza Bahmanyar, Arthur Louette, Louis Colson, Damien Ernst, Samy Mokeddem plus of course Marc Carnevale.

[Antoine Mouchamps @Ex983]

Exactly what my recently published Python package allows !

👉More info at https://t.co/m3PRdo2zdR

[Google DeepMind @GoogleDeepMind]

TORAX is our open-source plasma simulator allowing CFS to run millions of virtual experiments to test plans for their tokamak, SPARC.

Using reinforcement learning, we’re now rapidly identifying the most efficient paths for it to generate more power than it consumes - a landmark achievement known as crossing "breakeven."

[Antoine Mouchamps @Ex983]

A huge thank you to my amazing collaborators Arthur Malherbe, @AdrienBolland, and Prof. @DamienERNST1 for their invaluable help and support! 🙌

[Antoine Mouchamps @Ex983]

🎉 I am thrilled to announce that my paper on the use of RL for controlling plasma in fusion energy is now live!

👉 Access the paper: https://t.co/d06L3bFq9D

[Antoine Mouchamps @Ex983]

Our work introduces Gym-TORAX, an open-source Python package built upon the TORAX simulator (by @GoogleDeepMind), that bridges Reinforcement Learning (RL) and plasma control simulation for fusion research.

[Ananke Group @AnankeGroup]

C'est peut-être pas (plus) la solution.

Les récents articles sur la baisse des taux d'interception de certains systèmes russes par l'Ukraine suggèrent que ce n'est pas ce qui serait le plus pertinent. ⤵️

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Here's a question I know many are wondering about: why did China wait until now to use rare earths as leverage against the US? Why not in the first Trump administration when the US started the trade hostilities? Or when the Biden administration unleashed the chips export controls 3 years ago?

I just watched a fascinating explanation by a Chinese analyst and, unexpectedly, a big part of the explanation is... helium.

I had no idea but as he explains (source here: https://t.co/eUbbU5QIHW), all the way until 2022 China imported 95% of its helium and most of it was controlled by the US. Of the world's ten largest helium producers, four were American companies, and the remaining six all used American technology.

Helium isn't just a party balloons gas: it has plenty of industrial applications for things such as quantum computing, rocket technology, MRI machines, as a coolant for chip lithography equipment, etc.

In a nutshell what he's explaining is that with helium the US had an even stronger card to play if China ever used the rare earths card.

This raised huge alarm bells inside China. In an article published in late 2022 in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science (https://t.co/eZhyv438LK), several researchers from PetroChina’s Beijing-based Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development stressed that China would be greatly affected if the US imposed a “stranglehold” blockade on helium exports.

So over the past few years there were gigantic efforts in China to break the "helium shackles," with seven helium extraction facilities going into production, and China also switching imports from the US in favor of imports from friendly countries like Russia.

China's research ecosystem also went into overdrive to find solutions to the helium dependency issues, with China's Academy of Sciences awarding its annual 2024 "Outstanding Science and Technology Achievement Prize" to a new helium extraction technology project (https://t.co/eWs163mfaO) because "these scientific and engineering achievements broke the long-standing monopoly of the US and ensured the security of China's helium resources" (https://t.co/d7YquWKFGS)

The result: by the end of 2024 China had cut its helium dependence on the US to less than 5% (https://t.co/wOxm8VRZJj). The "helium shackles" were broken.

That's what most people don't realize: power isn't about intentions or rhetoric - it's about what you can actually do. Many wonder why countries almost never retaliate when the US imposes sanctions or export controls. The answer is simple: they can't. They lack the alternatives, the technology, the supply chains.

China is the first country that systematically worked to eliminate every single pressure point, with humongous efforts. It's not just helium: it's chips, energy, telecommunication, pharmaceuticals, etc.

That's why the rare earth card can finally be played now. Not because China suddenly became aggressive, but because they have developed the capabilities to say "no."

Last word: as a European, this is both depressing and inspiring. Depressing because it highlights the immense magnitude of the task at hand to become genuinely sovereign and develop our own capabilities to say "no." Inspiring because China demonstrated that it can actually be done, and relatively fast if we execute competently. Although with the current crop of folks at the helm in Europe, that last part is admittedly a very, very big "if"...

[Yaroslav Trofimov @yarotrof]

Ukraine was successful the first year of the war because its army fought differently. Once Zelensky replaced Zaluzhny with Syrsky last year, it has turned into a war of a small Soviet army against a big Soviet army, with predictable consequences. https://t.co/HDKdUW3uHI

[Ghaïs Guelaïa @GeekNfit]

Voilà voilà...

[Fabian Hoffmann @FRHoffmann1]

So, after 3.5 years, Europe finally resumes cruise missile production of a system that was conceived 35 years ago and entered service 28 years ago.

France, along with the UK and Germany, should have placed large orders for SCALP-EG, Storm Shadow, and Taurus by mid-2022. By now, the supply chain could have been fully operational and shifting towards an improved design.

But we've been calling for this for years, so I'll take the win.

[Etienne Marcuz @Etienne_Marcuz]

Important news for 🇪🇺Europe and 🇺🇦Ukraine.

The production of 🇫🇷🇬🇧SCALP/Strom Shadow long-range cruise missile will restart this year, 15 years after the last order was placed with MBDA.

The number of new missiles ordered remains unknown for now.

[Gérard Araud @GerardAraud]

The threat is growing because Europe is dithering. It has the means to deter Russia but doesn’t want to pay the price.

[Princertitude @princertitude]

Machiavélique, il propose un EPR pour infliger 15ans de retard au programme nucléaire iranien.

[Gabrielius Landsbergis🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis]

Was this the worst NATO Summit ever? “Well, at least it wasn’t a disaster,” a friend said when we discussed the matter. And I had to agree — it could have been much worse. For example, we might not have NATO anymore. But we still do. So, technically, yay.

As usual, a couple of observations from a safe distance - in the so-called Public Forum in the Hague.

1. The 5% target sounds like a big deal. You will hear enough praise out there, so I’ll focus on the problems.
First: nine countries still do not meet the 2% spending target. Spain is declaring that reaching 3.5% in TEN years is not realistic. But it would only require Spain to add roughly 0.18% of GDP every year for ten years to get there.
Belgium is saying there’s truth in what Spain is saying. Plenty of others, I’m pretty sure, are thinking the same - if choosing not to say it aloud.
BUT: since the declaration is confirmed, the question can be raised. If there are such wide disagreements in the alliance, does the text mean anything? Why should doubters act if they know others aren’t going to lift a finger? So therefore it is rather likely,\ that the biggest chunk of new funding will be spent by those who are directly at risk - those on the Eastern Flank.
The core problem here is threat assessment. Many of the allies are oblivious to the existential threat to the Eastern Flank. They are willing to cover over a lack of strategic thinking with a paper-based commitment.
And because of that, NATO may falter at its potentially darkest hour - because we would just not be ready. Lithuania can spend 100% of its GDP but it would still not be enough to cover for those who are not meeting their commitments.
Additionally, the public won’t be able to press governments to do more — paper targets will be announced, and most will pretend that something is being done. Until the moment we’re forced to fight, we may not even know the real situation.

2. Ukraine is falling through the cracks. It was a relief that Ukraine was mentioned in the declaration — but in far more ambiguous terms than before. It feels like the chance we had in 2023 or 2024 has been wasted.
Ukraine could have been invited. Should have been invited.
Now, even the famous “very well lit bridge to NATO” seems like an awkward thing to say between allies. What a waste.

3. Trump. Conflicting announcements about Article 5 made many confused and worried. Is the President of the US implying that the US isn’t sure whether European countries should be defended?Later, that was dispelled and explained. But many remain confused.
On the plus side — if WE are confused, Putin most likely is as well. Strategic ambiguity is in play. So again yay, technically not a disaster.
The real situation will become clear when the US announces the results of its posture review.
If there are changes in troop deployments in Europe — especially along the Eastern Flank — that might be the signal Putin is waiting for.

4. Lastly, I cannot find the words to describe the communication chosen by the Secretary General. I feel I might speak for a significant part of Europeans — it’s tasteless. The wording appears to have been stolen from the adult entertainment industry.
It reduces Europe to the state of a beggar — pitiful before our Transatlantic friends and Eastern opponents alike.
Whatever the goal was — it is disgraceful.

What we are witnessing may be the most reckless gamble of our generation.
If somehow the West manages to deter the Russians, help the Ukrainians, rebuild credibility, and restore order — well, all will be forgotten and forgiven.
But if not, God forbid — all of this: the paper commitments, the gushings of weakness and meekness — will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in modern history.