Mỹ âm thầm giành quyền kiểm soát khoáng sản Ukraine: Trung Quốc và EU phản ứng dữ dội

• Mỹ và Ukraine ký hiệp định khoáng sản chiến lược vào tháng 4/2025, cho phép Washington tiếp cận tài nguyên khoáng sản quan trọng của Ukraine, như đất hiếm, lithium, graphite và titanium.

• Ukraine hiện có 20.000 mỏ khoáng đã đăng ký, trong đó 9.000 là trữ lượng đã được xác minh, với trữ lượng lithium có thể đạt tới 3 triệu tấn.

• Gần 40% trữ lượng nằm ở vùng chiến sự hoặc dưới sự kiểm soát của Nga như Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, làm cho việc khai thác trở nên bất khả thi hoặc cực kỳ rủi ro.

• Thỏa thuận không chuyển quyền sở hữu tài nguyên cho Mỹ, nhưng cho phép các công ty Mỹ ưu tiên khai thác qua Quỹ đầu tư tái thiết Mỹ-Ukraine.

• Ukraine phải chuyển 50% doanh thu từ giấy phép khoáng sản vào quỹ này, trong khi phần đóng góp từ Mỹ không rõ ràng, chủ yếu thông qua hỗ trợ quân sự mới.

• Hiệp định ngừng viện trợ quân sự quá khứ, khiến Ukraine phải gánh thêm nợ nếu muốn tiếp tục nhận vũ khí Mỹ.

• Cơ sở chế biến khoáng sản vẫn chủ yếu ở Trung Quốc – quốc gia kiểm soát 90% hoạt động tinh chế đất hiếm toàn cầu, gây lo ngại rằng khoáng sản Ukraine có thể lại rơi vào chuỗi cung ứng do Trung Quốc kiểm soát.

• EU lo ngại hiệp định này vi phạm quy định cạnh tranh và ảnh hưởng đến tiến trình gia nhập EU của Ukraine.

• Các nhóm xã hội dân sự lên tiếng cảnh báo về nguy cơ bóc lột lao động, hủy hoại môi trường và thiếu minh bạch trong ngành khai thác của Ukraine.

• Mỹ đang mở rộng chiến lược “giành quyền kiểm soát khoáng sản” sang DRC, Greenland và liên kết với các nước châu Phi để làm suy yếu ảnh hưởng của Trung Quốc.

• Trung Quốc, EU, Ấn Độ, và các quốc gia đang phát triển cũng đồng loạt tham gia cuộc đua giành khoáng sản quan trọng, tái cấu trúc chuỗi cung ứng toàn cầu theo khối địa chính trị.

📌 Mỹ đang tận dụng hiệp định khoáng sản với Ukraine để giảm phụ thuộc vào Trung Quốc và kiểm soát chuỗi cung ứng toàn cầu. Với 40% khoáng sản Ukraine nằm ở vùng chiến sự, rủi ro khai thác cao. EU phản ứng mạnh vì lo ngại mất lợi ích chiến lược và vi phạm quy tắc gia nhập. Nếu không minh bạch và bảo vệ môi trường tốt, thỏa thuận có thể phản tác dụng và tạo xung đột địa chính trị mới.

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/geopolitics-minerals/

The new geopolitics of minerals

Bob Savic

The recently concluded U.S.-Ukraine strategic minerals pact aims to counter China’s dominance, but challenges arise from contested territories and potential EU conflicts.

he recently signed United States-Ukraine strategic minerals agreement, inked in April, grants Washington access to Ukraine’s extensive critical raw material deposits – vital for American advanced technology and defense sectors. The agreement is a geostrategic maneuver by the Trump administration to integrate minerals into its foreign policy, aiming to weaken China’s dominance in mineral supply and strengthen U.S. technological and military supply chains. 

U.S. strategic interest in Ukraine’s mineral wealth lies not in outright ownership, but in securing vital commodity flows. Consequently, the agreement permits Ukraine to maintain sovereign control over its subsoil, infrastructure and natural resources, as well as decision-making authority regarding extraction. American firms, in turn, will gain preferential access to explore and develop these resources via the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, a partnership established between the two nations’ government agencies to oversee such ventures. 

But there are some caveats. 

While offering Ukraine economic development opportunities, the deal also presents uncertainties, particularly given that many of Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits are in war-contested or Russian-occupied territories. The deal may also conflict with the EU’s strategic interests and could provoke China to pursue its own mineral agreements with Global Majority countries.   

Currently, Ukraine has 20,000 registered deposits of minerals and metals, of which nearly 9,000 are proven reserves. These include Europe’s largest quantities of rare earths, lithium, graphite and titanium. However, the majority of these deposits are scattered over the war-contested provinces of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv. Control over these resources will likely be crucial to Ukraine’s post-war economic recovery, Europe’s green future and Russia’s global resources status. 

Security and de-risking pitfalls 

Under the agreement, Ukraine is required to direct half its mineral license revenue into the partnership entity, yet the U.S. contribution at the outset is vaguely defined, referencing only new deliveries of military assistance. The agreement does not seek repayment for military aid previously provided, but it does confirm the cessation of past U.S. military aid and stipulates that Ukraine will accrue debt for further U.S. weapons supplies.  

However, there is no guarantee of such supplies from Washington, and the lack of explicit security guarantees raises questions about Ukraine’s long-term strategic benefits from the deal. While the Trump administration has suggested that the economic partnership could deter further Russian aggression, this view has been met with skepticism – particularly after a building in Kyiv used by U.S. company Boeing was heavily damaged in a recent large-scale Russian airstrike overnight on June 9-10. 

Moreover, a significant portion of Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits, estimated to be around 40 percent, and an even larger proportion of its rare earths, are located in southeastern Ukraine, in areas either occupied by Russia or subject to Russian military actions. This makes resource extraction impractical in or near an ongoing war zone, and could possibly reignite conflict post-war. Should extraction proceed, the provision of energy and infrastructure will be crucial for project viability, while the quality and quantity of mineral resources will influence investors’ bids for licenses under the agreement. The success of these projects will be highly uncertain if the agreement is poorly managed.  

And even if Ukraine’s upstream resources are successfully exploited, a key question remains: How much of these raw materials will then be refined in China? At present, Beijing controls over 90 percent of global rare earth processing and a significant share of lithium refining. If Ukraine’s raw minerals are processed by China, it could undermine the Trump administration’s entire de-risking strategy. 

Control issues 

The “bear in the room” complicating the deal is Russia, which controls parts of the Donbas and southeastern Ukraine, such as the Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. Each of these are rich in minerals like lithium, titanium, uranium, rare earth elements and graphite, as well as metals such as nickel and iron ore. They also contain energy resources such as natural gas and oil, with coal being the only resource excluded from the agreement. 

For instance, the Shevchenko deposit in Donetsk Oblast holds one of Europe’s largest hard-rock lithium resources, with an estimated 1.2 million metric tons of lithium oxide. This area is under Russian control, complicating development and access. Geologists have also identified potentially substantial lithium deposits in the “Ukrainian Shield” region of south-central and southeastern Ukraine, with estimates ranging from 1.6 to 3 million tons of lithium oxide. These reserves remain undeveloped due to the ongoing conflict.  

Ukraine possesses significant deposits of rare earth elements, including neodymium and dysprosium, which are crucial for high-tech applications. However, major rare earth element deposits such as Azovske and Mazurivske in Donetsk are also under Russian occupation. The Novopoltavske deposit in Zaporizhzhia contains rare earth elements including niobium and phosphate ores. It has not been developed since the Soviet era and is in a militarily contested area, hindering exploration and extraction.  

Regarding titanium, Ukraine ranks among the top countries globally for proven reserves, accounting for approximately 7 percent of worldwide production. Significant deposits are in Donetsk, with most areas currently under Russian control. However, the Zaporizhzhia Titanium-Magnesium Combine plant is located in the Ukraine-controlled part of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. As Europe’s sole manufacturer of titanium sponge, it produces ingots and slabs used in aerospace, nuclear power and chemical engineering. Nevertheless, the ongoing conflict poses significant challenges to its operations and ownership. 

Where Russia maintains control of these minerals or holds large swaths of resource-rich land, the potential supply may be effectively lost or inaccessible to Western markets. In such circumstances the deal becomes more symbolic or speculative, unless Ukraine regains the territory or discovers alternative deposits in safer regions. Russia, conversely, stands to gain economic and strategic leverage by using control of these minerals to supply its own industries or strike deals with China, India or other nations outside the Western sphere.  

For Ukraine, its minerals represent a potential economic engine for post-war recovery. Losing access to them could severely constrain its economic prospects and reconstruction financing. Even in Kyiv-controlled areas, the instability and ongoing war make large-scale mining investment risky, as companies are unlikely to commit billions of dollars to develop mines in conflict zones without security guarantees. 

In the short term, the U.S.-Ukraine deal is strategically important as it signals intent and offers support from the Trump administration to Kyiv’s ongoing defense. However, its practical value is contingent on territorial control. In the longer term, Ukraine’s sovereignty over resource-rich regions is vital not only for its own recovery but also for Western-owned global supply chains in the clean energy and defense sectors. 

Taxing concerns 

The agreement’s tax provisions exempt the partnership entity from all taxes in Ukraine, which could disadvantage the country’s stressed post-war budget. Furthermore, while no tariffs are expected to be imposed on imports into the U.S. from Ukraine, this is not stipulated as a firm commitment. And although the agreement states it is not intended to contradict Ukraine’s application or other obligations to the EU, the preferential treatment of U.S. companies has raised concerns in Brussels regarding Ukraine’s accession process. This includes questions over whether the agreement violates the European bloc’s competition rules, which require equal access for all companies – a condition Ukraine must comply with for its EU accession.  

Meanwhile, civil society organizations have voiced concerns about the ethical implications of the agreement, suggesting that Washington’s rapid pursuit of critical minerals in Ukraine could lead to exploitation and environmental degradation. Campaigners have called for a strategy that prioritizes sustainable practices and respects human rights, ensuring that the green transition does not come at the expense of vulnerable communities following years of debilitating war with Russia.  

Ukraine’s mining sector has also faced criticism over poor working conditions. Should U.S. firms fail to enforce high standards, they may face backlash from human rights organizations and public protests. Furthermore, given Ukraine’s long-standing struggles with transparency in its mining sector, American investors may demand excessive concessions to offset high risks. Such an outcome would undermine the benefits Ukraine might otherwise have obtained from the deal.  

Supply-chain worries 

The agreement aims to address Washington’s growing concern over its dependence on Chinese-controlled supply chains for critical minerals. The U.S. currently relies on China for approximately 70 percent of its rare earth element imports. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has stated that “reducing reliance on Chinese rare earth elements is a national security imperative.” Ukraine’s integration into this supply chain diversification strategy could therefore have far-reaching effects on global markets and geopolitical alignments.  

One such effect could be Beijing’s reaction to the deal as it attempts to assert its economic dominance in this sector. It views the agreement as an attempt by the U.S. to disrupt its control over critical minerals supply chains. China could respond with various measures, including imposing trade restrictions on U.S. companies while simultaneously increasing investments in African and Latin American mines and enhancing support for its own state mining giants. China’s Belt and Road Initiative may also expand mining investments across Eurasia, such as in critical mineral-rich Central Asia and Mongolia, to compensate for any loss of influence resulting from the U.S. minerals deal in Ukraine.  

The EU’s reaction to the minerals deal will also be significant. Brussels has its own critical minerals strategy aimed at reducing reliance on China and Russia. As a result of the agreement, U.S. companies may find themselves in a bidding war with European firms for Ukrainian assets, pressuring already strained transatlantic ties. Should the U.S. monopolize Ukraine’s mineral exports, the EU may be compelled to seek alternative deals in Africa or South America, further fragmenting transatlantic supply chains. 

The agreement could also push other mineral-rich nations to reassess their longstanding partnerships. African and Latin American mineral-supplying states may seek to leverage their resources for better terms from China, India, the EU or the U.S. The overall effect would be to accelerate the fragmentation of established global supply chains into more complex sets of geopolitical blocs and sub-blocs. 

Scenarios

Likely: The agreement enhances U.S. strategic control over global minerals supplies 

The U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement is more than an economic deal; it is a geostrategic maneuver with profound consequences. At the very least, the agreement advances the Trump administration’s agenda of embedding minerals into its foreign policy. The deal’s investment-for-minerals structure also aligns with President Trump’s transactional foreign policy ethos of maximizing the “art of the deal.” By securing access to Ukraine’s critical minerals, the U.S. aims to clinch several geopolitical objectives.  

The first is to weaken China’s minerals supply dominance and bolster America’s own technological and military supply chains. Second, Washington will seek to deepen the EU’s dependence on U.S.-developed critical minerals, rare earths, and energy exports. This would include downstream shipments of future Ukraine-origin minerals out of the U.S., where long-term investments in minerals processing and refining will be enacted through government support.  

Last, and in parallel, the U.S. will push allied European nations and partners into increased defense spending. Much of this will likely be spent on American weapons technology, itself boosted by U.S. strategic investments in critical minerals extraction and refining.  

Nonetheless, for the agreement to succeed without escalating tensions with Europe, the U.S. would need to ensure transparent governance in Ukraine and address environmental and labor concerns. Otherwise, the competition for critical minerals across the continent could become another flashpoint in an increasingly rocky relationship. The critical minerals and rare earths riches of eastern Ukraine, if controlled by the U.S., may well tighten Washington’s long-term strategic hold over Europe through its reliance on minerals and energy sources from non-European sources – Europe will be increasingly more dependent on the U.S. for critical material inputs in a coming era of global resource-driven geopolitics. 

Equally likely: The agreement triggers a scramble for global critical minerals 

With its initial critical minerals deal secured, the Trump administration is poised to explore other mineral-rich regions globally. Notably, U.S. President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to control Greenland, a Danish semi-autonomous territory rich in rare earth resources. Less controversially, he has expanded his search for critical mineral supplies from Africa, with a minerals-for-security deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which has some of the world’s largest quantities and highest quality of cobalt, lithium and other minerals. DRC President Felix Tshisekedi recently offered the U.S. access to his nation’s mineral resources in exchange for military assistance, an important step toward diversification given Chinese companies already hold stakes in 15 of the DRC’s largest cobalt and copper mines.  

European governments have also begun increasing their support for African mining projects in a strategic move to diversify their global critical mineral supply sources. The Minerals Security Partnership, a coalition of 14 nations and the European Commission, aims to undermine China’s dominant position in the sector while fostering economic development in resource-rich African countries. The partnership is currently evaluating over 30 critical minerals mining projects across Africa.  

India has launched a multi-pronged strategy to acquire and source critical minerals worldwide, including developing international partnerships and acquiring resources. The country remains heavily dependent on imports for energy transition minerals and their compounds, with 100 percent import dependency for minerals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. This dependency is likely to continue as demand for critical minerals is expected to more than double by 2030. 

As the U.S., Europe, India and other nations launch initiatives to weaken China’s grip on critical minerals, African countries’ mining operations stand to benefit significantly. This renewed focus on African mineral resources promises to diversify global supply chains and offers substantial economic opportunities for the continent. With continued collaboration between governments, private investors and mining companies, Africa could play a pivotal role in reshaping the global critical minerals landscape as powerful external actors vie for influence.  

Facts & figures

Global mineral resources 

Russia: Possesses vast reserves of rare earths, particularly in the Murmansk and Khabarovsk regions. 

Turkey: Boasts significant chromite production and has discovered rare earth elements in central Anatolia. 

Australia: Holds extensive resources of lithium, rare earths, cobalt and nickel, making it a key player in non-Chinese critical mineral supply. 

Mexico: Has large lithium deposits, notably in Sonora, considered among the world’s largest. 

Philippines: Is a leading global producer of nickel, accounting for over 10 percent of global production, with cobalt often a byproduct of its nickel mining. 

Brazil: Ranks among the top globally with approximately 21 million metric tons of rare earth reserves. Its Serra Verde mine has begun commercial production of critical magnet rare earth elements like neodymium, praseodymium, terbium and dysprosium. Brazil is also developing the “Lithium Valley” project in the Jequitinhonha Valley, focused on lithium extraction and processing. 

Vietnam: Holds around 3.5 million metric tons of rare earth reserves. The country is developing a vertically integrated rare earth magnet supply chain to become a significant player outside China, and is also an emerging graphite producer. 

Chile: Possesses the world’s largest lithium reserves, primarily in the Atacama Desert, and plans to nationalize its lithium industry to develop more sustainable extraction methods. 

Afghanistan: Is speculated to have significant lithium deposits in Herat, Nimroz and Ghazni provinces, while the Hajigak deposit in Bamyan Province is known for substantial niobium reserves, a metal used in superconductors. 

Africa: Tanzania has multiple mines under development for battery markets, with its Ngualla deposit containing high-grade rare earth elements. Madagascar possesses high-quality graphite, and its Ambatovy mine is one of the world’s largest nickel and cobalt operations. 

Mongolia and Central Asia: These regions are richly endowed with critical and strategic minerals, though much of their potential remains underexplored. Khotgor and Bayan Obo-type deposits in eastern Mongolia are believed to contain rare earth elements vital for electric vehicle and wind turbine magnets, such as neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium. Early-stage lithium exploration is underway in southern Mongolia’s saline lakes and pegmatite zones. Kazakhstan is the most mineral-rich Central Asian state, containing rare earth elements in phosphorite ores and coal ash deposits, though commercial production is currently limited. Significant deposits of chromium, vanadium, titanium and cobalt also exist there.