Highlights
- China dominates global rare earth supply with 44 million tonnes of reserves, producing nearly 70% of the world’s supply.
- Trump explores alternative rare earth sources in Greenland and Ukraine.
- Russia unexpectedly offers access to its 3.8 million tonnes of rare earth deposits.
- The U.S. faces complex geopolitical challenges in diversifying rare earth supply chains.
- There is a highlighted need for domestic resource development in the U.S.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s seeks to secure critical rare earth minerals from Greenland and Ukraine as a countermeasure to China’s dominance over these essential materials. While Trump’s rhetoric suggests an urgent need to diversify U.S. rare earth supply chains, the feasibility of these plans is questionable. However, an unexpected offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin to supply the U.S. with rare earth elements could reshape global rare earth geopolitics and complicate Washington’s stance toward Moscow.
This latest media entry in South China Morning Post reminds all readers China holds the world’s largest rare earth reserves (44 million tonnes) and produces nearly 70% of the global supply, making the U.S. heavily reliant on Chinese exports. China has already restricted exports of critical minerals like gallium and germanium and could extend such bans to rare earth elements as part of economic retaliation.
So the Greenland and Ukraine Play
Trump has renewed interest in acquiring Greenland, which has 1.5 million tonnes of rare earth reserves and has pushed for Ukraine to compensate the U.S. for wartime aid with access to its “rare earth” resources. However, Ukraine’s rare earth potential remains unverified—most U.S. interests in Ukrainian resources involve lithium, titanium, uranium, and graphite, not necessarily rare earths. Rare Earth Exchanges has suggested that a good amount of the deposits lie in the Russian-held parts of the country.
Enter Russia’s Unexpected Proposal
Putin has offered the U.S. access to Russia’s rare earth deposits (3.8 million tonnes, ranking fifth globally), contingent on Washington lifting sanctions and restoring trade ties. Could this move reduce U.S. reliance on China while simultaneously strengthening economic ties between Washington and Moscow—something that would be highly controversial given the ongoing war in Ukraine?
Questions Raised
As Rare Earth Exchanges continuously reports an overstating of Ukraine rare earth potential, again the article repeatedly mentions Ukraine’s “great rare earths.” Yet official U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data does not list Ukraine as a known rare earth producer. While Ukraine has valuable minerals, calling them “rare earths” conflates different types of critical materials, potentially misleading readers. Greenland as a solution, despite barriers, continues to be a question.
Greenland’s rare earth reserves are acknowledged, but mining them faces significant challenges, including local opposition, harsh climate conditions, and regulatory roadblocks. The assumption that Trump could easily tap into Greenland’s resources overlooks these complications. Then of course there is that processing problem.
So, is Putin’s offering a game-changer? The recent media entry from SCMP suggests that rare Russian earths could be a viable alternative to Chinese supply, but it downplays the geopolitical risks. Partnering with Russia, a sanctioned adversary, could alienate NATO allies and undermine Western unity against Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine. Plus, any such assumptions presuppose Rusia’s capabilities and capacity to process, refine, and produce magnets at scale.
Also, this media certainly wonders about the feasibility of a U.S.-Russia trade reset. The suggestion that the U.S. could lift sanctions in exchange for Russian minerals assumes Trump’s administration could sidestep bipartisan opposition to normalizing trade with Russia despite its ongoing war in Ukraine. This assumption seems politically unrealistic, but conditions can change.
Rare Earth Exchanges points to other matters not contemplated in most mainstream media, whether from America to Australia to China. One could wonder whether Trump’s Focus on Greenland and Ukraine could be more about optics than actual resource security. Given the complexities of extraction and ownership in both regions, is Trump using this narrative to posture against China rather than presenting realistic alternatives?
How would China respond if the U.S. started sourcing from Russia? If Washington shifts away from Chinese rare earths in favor of Russian supply, would Beijing impose stricter countermeasures, further disrupting the rare earth market? It’s not certain. And Russia lacks the rare earth processing capacity and scale of China.
While Trump’s push to diversify U.S. rare earth supplies is strategically sound, his reliance on Greenland and Ukraine appears more rhetorical than practical. Russia’s offer introduces a new dimension, but any U.S.-Russia rare earth deal would be fraught with political and economic complications, not to mention inherent limitations. Ultimately, this geopolitical chess game underscores the U.S.’s urgent need to develop domestic rare earth supply chains rather than relying on adversarial nations for critical resources.
Leave a Reply