If you’ve ever used an iphone, driven an electric car, or used anything with a lithium battery, you’ve participated in the world of rare-earth mining. While common in our modern global landscape, rare-earth mining has not only massive geopolitical concerns but also human rights concerns. Rare-earth minerals include cobalt, zinc, iron, manganese, and nickel, and they are used in a variety of ways to produce modern technology. Currently, there are several large deposits of these in the world. According to a study for 2023, China has the largest number with 37% of the world’s deposits, followed by Brazil and Vietnam. Then, other areas of the world including Australia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Finally, Ukraine has around 5% of the world’s deposits.
One of the most widely used rare earth minerals is cobalt. The largest holder of Cobalt is the DRC, which holds 50% of the world’s cobalt reserves and produces around 80% of the world’s cobalt. While at points American companies had access to this mining, in recent years, the reserves have been bought by Chinese companies, leading them to take control of the area. This includes companies such as Zijin Mining, China Minmetals (CNMC), and Sinostee, of which both companies privately and state-owned. Companies such as these hold a lot of power in the area with no real interest in the economy or political state beyond mining, this has led to significant corruption in the government.
The mining process for cobalt uses the exploitation of underpaid labourers and children. Think Global Health reported that “Adult miners are paid between $2.15 and $8.60 per day, but child miners make at most $2.50.” The mining often involves up to twelve hours of day doing physical labor with workers never seeing the conveniences their work provides people in the Western world. The lack of control over mining in Africa has led the US to look for other areas rich in rare earth minerals. Many people will remember President Trump’s push for the US to buy Greenland earlier this year, which is potentially linked to the land being rich in rare earth minerals. Ukraine, as well, holds large amounts of cobalt reserves in the Kirovohrad and Dnipropetrovsk regions. It also claims to hold “substantial amounts of the world’s rare earth metals – a group of seventeen elements that are used to produce weapons, wind turbines, electronics and other products vital in the modern world – but these claims are disputed.”
The US mineral deal with Ukraine was first mentioned earlier last year by the Ukrainian president Zelensky. The deal was a way for the US to acquire tangible benefits from continuing to offer aid to Ukraine. According to a Reuters article from April 11th of this year, which looked into the terms of the deal, it would “give the U.S. privileged access to Ukraine’s mineral deposits and require Kyiv to place in a joint investment fund all income from the exploitation of natural resources by Ukrainian state and private firms”. This essentially means that the US would help to hold Ukraine accountable for their financial state and provide oversight into the country’s operations. However, “found in the document was a U.S. demand that the U.S. government’s International Development Finance Corporation take control of a natural gas pipeline from Russian energy giant Gazprom across Ukraine to Europe”. This stipulation has raised major concerns across Europe, with people viewing it as an overreach of US power. While oversight and investment are vital in post-conflict recovery, allowing a foreign power to exert control over critical infrastructure and resources is a dangerous game. Similiar examples would be Iraq after the post-2003 invasion with the dominance of the oil industry, the same thing happening in South Sudan post-independence in 2011. While these are not eactly the same situation they show how the US has leveraged political instabilities of other countries in exchange for natural resources.
There are also significant geopolitical consequences of the US-Ukraine mineral deal. By granting the US privileged access to Ukraine’s resources, even if they are under joint oversight, leads to questions about Ukraine’s sovereignty. The move could also escalate tensions with Russia, with the US reinforcing their presence on the border. A BBC article from March 5th 2025, which gave an overview of the deal said, “Before the deal was supposed to be signed, Vladimir Putin told state TV he was ready to “offer” resources to American partners in joint projects, including mining in Russia’s “new territories” – a reference to parts of eastern Ukraine occupied by Russia since its full-scale invasion three years ago.” The statement from the Russian president appears to be a strategic attempt to undercut the US agreement by presenting Russia as an alternative partner in the rare earth development, highlighting their overall discontent with the deal. This could place tension on US-China relations with the increasing competition over rare-earth minerals, especially as Washington seeks to reduce its reliance on Chinese supply chains and move more production towards allied countries.
While it is taking place on the other side of the continent, Ireland would not be immune for the consequences if the deal were to be pushed through. Ireland, as a part of the European Union, could be caught in the crosshairs of either supporting Ukraine’s recovery balanced with America’s overextension of influence. Additionally, this is complicated with Ireland’s special relationship with the US, based on their support in Ireland’s times of need. Finally, disruptions of the global supply chain of rare-earth minerals, due to political fallout, sanctions, or trade disagreements, could stagnate industries reliant on minerals. Ireland is a country with a growing tech and renewable energy sector – resource politics in Ukraine could quickly evolve to economic ramifications back home.
