Highlights

• Baranowski et al. argue that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is primarily about securing critical mineral resources for future economic and technological dominance.
• Nearly half of Ukraine's economically valuable critical mineral reserves are currently in Russian-occupied territories, making resource control a central war objective.
• The study introduces 'adaptive resource geopolitics', highlighting how control of strategic minerals like rare earths, graphite, and lithium is becoming as crucial as traditional military goals.

---

A recent analysis (opens in a new tab) by Mariusz Baranowski (opens in a new tab) and Piotr Jabkowski (opens in a new tab) (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland) and Daniel M. Kammen (opens in a new tab) (UC Berkeley) argues that Russia’s war in Ukraine is as much about securing key minerals as it is about NATO or cultural issues. The paper shows that Moscow’s occupation of mineral-rich regions in Ukraine suggests a deliberate strategy to control critical resources for the future. Baranowski et al. introduce the concept of “adaptive resource geopolitics,” meaning that control over strategic minerals(graphite, lithium, titanium, zirconium, and rare earths) has become a central war objective. These resources are essential inputs for clean-energy technologies and defense systems worldwide, and the authors warn that Russia’s moves threaten long-term energy and security supply chains.

Key findings of the study include:

The 2025 analysis by Baranowski, Jabkowski, and Kammen reframes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a strategic bid to dominate the country’s vast critical mineral wealth—not merely a geopolitical struggle over borders or NATO expansion.

As the European Green Deal reduces Moscow’s leverage over fossil fuel exports, the Kremlin’s control of mineral-rich territories—including those containing rare earths, graphite, titanium, and lithium—is interpreted as an adaptive pivot to maintain global influence in a post-carbon economy. The authors introduce the concept of “adaptive resource geopolitics,” arguing that in modern conflicts, control over strategic minerals is now on par with traditional military objectives. Their study estimates that roughly half of Ukraine’s economically valuable critical mineral reserves are currently located in Russian-occupied zones, making resource control a central axis of the war.

The authors also spotlight a growing minerals-based diplomacy: in early 2025, the Trump administration proposed a “minerals-for-security” deal offering the U.S. privileged access to Ukraine’s rare earths in exchange for defense support, elevating Ukraine’s natural resources to a formal geopolitical bargaining chip. Meanwhile, the European Union’s stance remains muddled. Although the EU’s Green Deal drives enormous demand for critical minerals, the bloc still depends on adversarial suppliers like Russia and China. The paper criticizes the EU’s “ambiguous” posture, suggesting its structural dependencies and lack of unified mineral strategy leave it vulnerable to intensifying global competition for clean energy resources.

What Are Some Limitations?

Despite its robust framing, the study by Baranowski, Jabkowski, and Kammen leaves several critical uncertainties unresolved. Chief among them is the question of reserve viability: how much of Ukraine’s reported mineral wealth is economically recoverable remains unknown. Many sites, including key rare earth deposits, have not been thoroughly surveyed since the Soviet era, and others lie in war-torn regions where infrastructure is destroyed or inaccessible. The authors concede that much of Ukraine’s mineral potential remains unquantified, with minimal processing capacity on the ground and little up-to-date data to support extraction forecasts.

The paper also omits details on Russia’s ability—or strategy—to exploit the mineral territories it now controls. While it maps the overlap between occupied zones and valuable deposits, it fails to explore how Russia might develop or export these resources under intense Western sanctions. Likewise, while the authors note the EU’s ambiguous stance, they avoid deeper analysis of the bloc’s internal contradictions. Europe’s fragmented critical minerals policy—caught between climate goals, dependency fears, and lack of industrial capacity—remains an underexamined vulnerability, leaving open whether the EU can secure reliable, sovereign supply chains as global competition intensifies.

Final Thoughts

The analysis underscores that control of rare earths and other critical minerals will shape geopolitical alignments and economic stability. As the authors conclude, access to these resources “will shape future geopolitical alignments, energy strategies, and global economic stability,” calling for coordinated international mineral-security policies. For investors and policymakers, the study is a stark reminder that Ukraine’s mineral wealth is now very much a strategic asset – one that could redefine the clean-energy and defense supply chains in the decades ahead. Rare Earth Exchanges (REEx), however, reminds investors that the devil remains in both the assumptions and the details of execution.

Sources: M. Baranowski (Adam Mickiewicz University), P. Jabkowski (Adam Mickiewicz University), and D.M. Kammen (UC Berkeley), Energy Research & Social Science (opens in a new tab) (May 2025); additional context from related industry analyses reuters.com (opens in a new tab). (opens in a new tab)