Highlights

• Russia's proposed $9.2 billion Angara-Yenisei Valley hub aims to increase its global rare earth share from 1.3% to 10% by 2030.
• The project positions minerals as leverage in Ukraine negotiations.
• Critical gaps exist in separation chemistry, refining technology, and magnet manufacturing capabilities that China dominates.
• The real bottleneck is not mining reserves but downstream processing, with China controlling 85-90% of refining capacity.
• Russia lacks modern, cost-competitive separation and metallization infrastructure at scale.
• Sanctions block Russia's access to essential equipment, reagents, and Western technology transfers.
• Europe's rare earth vulnerability cannot be solved by swapping Chinese dependence for Russian exposure.
• True supply chain autonomy requires building domestic separation, metallization, and magnet production capacity with trusted allies.
• This is a slow, expensive process with realistic timelines extending into the next decade.

---

Europe’s renewed whispers of diplomacy with Moscow have revived a familiar claim: that Russia can help loosen the West’s dependence on China for rare earths. A recent analysis (opens in a new tab) by the European Council on Foreign Relations argues that Moscow is positioning its minerals sector—centered on a planned Siberian processing hub—as leverage in any future Ukraine talks. The story is provocative. The reality is more constrained.

The Claim: A Siberian Hub as Strategic Leverage

At the center of Russia’s pitch is the Angara–Yenisei Valley, a proposed $9.2 billion industrial zone intended to raise Russia’s global rare earth share from ~1.3% to 10% by 2030. Politically, the project carries weight: it is overseen by senior figures close to Vladimir Putin. Economically, it is framed as a European alternative to China’s dominance in mining and, crucially, refining.

On the Money

China does dominate—~60% of mining and ~85–90% of refining. Europe’s import exposure is real, and China’s licensing regime has increased transparency demands on Western buyers. Europe has felt the volatility.

But what’s missing? How about scale, timelines, and technology?

The Choke Point Everyone Skips

Rare earth leverage is not about reserves; it’s about separation chemistry, metallization, and magnet-grade manufacturing. Russia has large geological resources, but lacks modern, cost-competitive refining and downstream capabilities at scale. Sanctions complicate equipment, reagents, finance, and insurance. Chinese partners are unlikely to transfer crown-jewel know-how; Western partners face legal and reputational barriers.

The article cites Estonia’s Narva processing plant as evidence that Europe is already turning to Russia. True—but Narva processes feedstock, not end-to-end magnets, and relies on fragile cross-border flows. That is not autonomy; it is exposure.

Timelines vs. Reality

Utilitiesby 2026 and first plants by 2028 sound neat. Investors know better. Even under ideal conditions, permitting, EPC, commissioning, yield optimization, and customer qualification push meaningful output into the next decade—especially for high-purity oxides and magnet alloys. A “10% by 2030” target reads aspirational, not bankable.

What’s Notable for the Supply Chain

The real signal isn’t Russian leverage—as Rare Earth Exchanges™ continues to point out, it’s European vulnerability. The West’s problem remains refining and magnets, not diplomacy. Betting on Moscow as a shortcut risks swapping one chokepoint for another.

Bottom Line

Russia’s plan may consolidate domestic elites and headline a negotiating posture. It does not, on current facts, solve Europe’s rare earth bottleneck. Autonomy comes from building separation, metallization, and magnet capacity at home and with trusted allies—slow, expensive, and unavoidable.                         

Source: ECFR analysis, January 27, 2026.