Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Protesters hold Democratic Republic of Congo flags during a march to voice concerns about issues regarding the recent conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), outside the parliament in Cape Town, South Africa, February 7, 2025.
Is the DRC on the path to peace?
On Tuesday, Angola offered to mediate an end to the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group. Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi traveled to Angola to discuss a potential peace process, announcing that direct negotiations could come within days – something they have been loath to engage in the past. Meanwhile, the DRC is trying to strengthen its position by leveraging critical mineral reserves to secure backing from the Trump administration.
Background: M23 is one of nearly 100 armed groups operating in the mineral-rich DRC, where ongoing violence has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, displacing over 7 million people. In a swift three-week offensive last month, M23 seized two major cities and is now advancing across the eastern part of the country. Given the stakes, Tshisekedi hopes to secure US support by offering access to critical minerals in exchange for security.
The DRC holds an estimated $24 trillion in untapped mineral wealth. It is the world’s largest supplier of cobalt — a crucial material for defense, aerospace, and electric vehicle batteries — though most currently goes to China. The country also has significant lithium, tantalum, and uranium reserves, all vital to military technology.
The deal on the table: The DRC’s proposal combines security and minerals, offering the US companies favorable mining access in exchange for equipping Congolese forces and running military bases to protect supply routes. The White House signaled it's open to the offer, but even if they agree, US companies may consider it too risky to do business in the region unless a ceasefire is reached.
US-Canada trade war helps Mark Carney's election prospects
With recent tensions between Zelensky and Washington, how likely are the Saudi-hosted peace talks to yield real progress?
Well, we'll find out real soon. Zelensky has certainly made his efforts to make nice on the critical minerals deal, on apologizing to the Trump White House for a meeting that frankly he has very little to apologize for, and that certainly has helped with getting this engagement going. Also, he's not attending personally, rather, his key envoys and advisors meeting with Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Adviser Waltz. I suspect that the meetings will end up being just fine, but they are unlikely to lead to a ceasefire because what the Ukrainians are prepared to accept, the Russians are not close to accepting. So either Trump is going to have to be willing to take some time, bring it to the Russians and see that the Russians are not playing full ball, or he's going to have to throw the Ukrainians under the bus more and make greater demands that they're not prepared to accept. I don't think either of those things are likely to happen today, but that's I think, the direction of travel.
Are we on the cusp of a nuclear proliferation era as Poland and Germany talk of acquiring nuclear weapons?
Germany's talking more about sharing in the nuclear umbrella with France. Poland's talking about getting its own. These things are all harder. They will take longer than these countries have. It's not like France's nuclear umbrella is deep or easily extendable. In order to have anyone believe credibly that a French deterrent would apply to other countries, a lot of things have to happen in terms of coordination and infrastructure and building up those capabilities that will take frankly years. So, I think it's important that these conversations are happening. I think that many countries around the world are moving towards establishing their own nuclear capabilities in, around, the Middle East. I can certainly see over time as Iran gets closer, the Saudis thinking about it, the Turks thinking about it, in Asia, South Korea and Japan. In Europe, a number of countries needing to have collective security because they don't feel like the Americans can provide for them. But I don't think those things are happening overnight. The global order is changing. It is really past the tipping point, but these things are slow moving processes.
Does Justin Trudeau's replacement, Mark Carney, have a shot of winning Canada's general election?
Certainly does, and three months ago would've had no shot at all. There's been an extraordinary bounce back for the Liberal Party, in part because they're now represented by someone that is not an incumbent. Think about what would've happened in the US if it hadn't been Biden or Kamala Harris, but had been an outsider after general primary, better shot of winning. That's exactly what the Canadians have now done. Trudeau forced down, Chrystia Freeland, his deputy prime minister, getting 8% in the Liberal caucus vote, and Carney getting almost 86%. So he's a centrist. He's in much better position to give a serious run against Pierre Poilievre of the Conservatives. The big question is how is Trump going to respond? Because on the one hand, it's very easy for Trump to now say, "Trudeau's gone because of me, and I'm now willing to work with somebody who is more reasonable," and the markets would certainly appreciate that. On the other hand, short of him doing that, and I think it's unlikely that he's going to reach out and extend a hand to the Canadians, then Trump beating on Canada more gives Carney a better shot of winning because he's the guy that can manage an economic crisis and also because the Canadians are so united in their anger with the United States, kind of like Mexico is right now, kind of like a number of European countries are right now. So Trump is definitely a uniter, just not inside the US, more inside other countries.
What does Trump’s critical minerals play in Ukraine have to do with Canada?
After softening its demands, the US has secured a critical minerals development deal with Ukraine, whose president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is planning to visit Washington on Friday. The US had initially demanded $500 billion in critical minerals for jointly developing critical these resources, and, ostensibly, repaying the country for money sent to Ukraine to aid it in its defense against Russia. Ukraine hopes the deal will ensure future military funding assistance from the US, which has been thrown into doubt since Donald Trump came to office. (Read our explainer on rare earths here.)
Closer to home, as Trump threatens Canada with tariffs, there’s growing concern that the president’s ultimate aim – aside from possibly annexing the country – is gaining control of Canadian critical minerals and rare earths. These resources, which include lithium, cobalt, copper, graphite, and more, are essential to several industries and products, including electric vehicles, cell phones, computers, and military hardware, making them not just essential to the economy, but to national defense, too.
In Canada, concern over critical minerals played a notable part in the Liberal Party’s English-language leadership debate on Tuesday night, as candidates to replace outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent much of the evening talking about threats from the US. Presumptive frontrunner Mark Carney said Canada ought to leverage its critical minerals to deal with Trump and strengthen the Canadian economy, while Parliament member and Cabinet minister Karina Gould warned that Trump’s focus on Canada was expressly tied to a play for those resources. The growing focus on economic and domestic security in the US means we could be hearing a lot more about critical minerals and rare earths in the weeks and months to come as the president refines his demands from Canada.Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy speaks during a press conference, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine February 26, 2025.
GZERO Explains: The curious case of Trump’s rare earths deal in Ukraine
Ukraine agreed on Wednesday to cede control over a substantial share of future mineral riches to the United States, part of a sweeping deal US President Donald Trump has suggested as a condition for continuing to support Kyiv. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the deal – which his administration says is worth $500 billion – is about “rare earths.”
So, what are rare earths? They’re a family of 17 elements used to make weapons, wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries, and other modern electronics. Among the key metals are neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium, the prices of which have largely fallen over the past year as demand for electric vehicles declined.
Where do they come from? Until the 1990s, the US was the top supplier, but Beijing now controls roughly 70% of the world’s raw, unprocessed rare earths and nearly 90% of the refining capacity. China isn’t shy about using that leverage – in 2010 Beijing cut off rare earths shipments to Japan amid a diplomatic dispute and has on occasion threatened to do the same to the US too. But total global production of rare earths each year amounts to only about $15 billion. That’s equal to about two days of global oil production, according to Bloomberg.
Is Ukraine a major producer? Not at the moment. Ukraine isn’t even mentioned in a US Geological Survey report on global supplies. The country has some small-scale mines that produce scandium, a rare-earth metal used in oil refining, and lightweight aluminum-based alloys like those used in bicycle frames. But those production sites are relatively tiny.
What about other minerals? Ukraine has about 7% of Europe’s supplies of titanium, a lightweight metal used to make everything from airplanes to sporting equipment to the newer versions of the iPhone. The country has some notable deposits of graphite, a key mineral for batteries and nuclear reactors. There are also some small reserves of lithium, the main ingredient in batteries, as well as iron, manganese, and uranium.
But overall, Europe’s second-largest country by landmass ranks 40th among the world’s mineral-producing nations. That could change, but mining is an energy-intensive process, and Ukraine’s power plants and pipelines are largely ruined after three years of war. What’s more, some of the rare earths are located in the eastern parts of Ukraine under Russian occupation.
So what’s in the deal? It would create a fund into which Ukraine would place half of the proceeds of “future monetization” of Ukraine’s mineral wealth, including oil and gas deposits. The size of the US stake in the fund is to be worked out in the future.
What’s not? Security guarantees from the US to Ukraine. Kyiv had sought this as part of the deal.
So, with so much uncertainty, what’s this deal really about? It’s hard to say. From Trump’s perspective, the promise of future mining revenues may offer political cover to keep US military support in place for the time being. From Zelensky’s, that’s worth it in itself, and he may figure he can negotiate security guarantees later.
What’s next? Zelensky is expected to travel to Washington in the coming days to sign the deal with Trump.
President Joe Biden hosts a virtual roundtable on securing critical minerals at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2022.
Digging deep: US military buys into Canadian mining
The US military is sinking nearly $15 million into the Canadian mining sector through the Defense Production Act in what is believed to be the first time in the DPA’s 74-year history that the US has used such funds outside the country.
Why? Both Canada and the US have gone all-in on critical minerals in recent years amid growing tensions and anxiety over China and its control of strategic supply chains.
The joint investment with the Canadian government, part of the US-Canadian Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals, covers projects for critical minerals essential to key industries including energy, communications, and defense. These include copper, gold, graphite, and cobalt in Quebec and the Northwest Territories.
For its part, China is watching closely – while still investing its own capital into the Canadian mining sector.
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a virtual roundtable on securing critical minerals at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2022.
US and Canada strike up first critical minerals partnership
Speaking of China,the US and Canada are taking their efforts to compete with Beijing underground – literally. The Pentagon on Thursday announced it would invest $15 million in two early-stage mines in Canada looking to dig for “critical minerals” that are considered essential for national security.
The Canadian government will pony up a similar amount for the project, which represents the first US-Canada tag team of its kind. The two projects will focus on cobalt and graphite, critical components in solar power batteries and other fuel cells which are at the heart of the green energy transition.
China is the world’s leading miner of graphite and dominates the global cobalt industry through its control over the sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world’s largest producer.
The American money for the two Canadian mines comes under the Defense Production Act, a tool from the early days of the Cold War that enables the president to expedite the funding or production of industries deemed essential for national security.
The small print? Governments were the only option. The mining companies weren’t able to raise money for these projects on traditional capital markets, because the prospects are at such an early stage that they can’t be proven.
Artistic rendering of Canada with periodic table of critical minerals
Why Biden and Trudeau struggle to deliver critical minerals
When Canadian Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson unveiled Canada’s critical minerals strategy last year, he emphasized the crucial link between building mines and reducing carbon emissions.
“It cannot take us 12 to 15 years to open a mine in this country,” he said. “Not if we want to achieve our climate goals.”
In fact, though, Wilkinson was understating the problem. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, the average turnaround time for opening a mine in Canada — from discovery to production — is nearly 18 years. Things are not that much faster in the United States, where the average is 13 years.
President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are pushing hard for a green transition — a generational shift away from fossil fuels to cut the emissions that cause climate change. But their plans depend on lots of new mines, and in both countries, there are complex, unpredictable regulatory processes that stand between venture capitalists and ore production. Those processes are designed to protect the environment and Indigenous communities, but they are also standing in the way of the production of the key ingredients in batteries, electric vehicles, and clean-energy grids — copper, nickel, lithium, graphite, cobalt, and rare earth elements.
Where are the permits?
Biden and Trudeau have promised to tackle the problem, and both have taken steps to make it easier. But they don’t control all the levers, and there is little reason to hope that the lead-up times will be shortened quickly enough to allow for the ramp-up in production that experts say we need to allow both economies to shift away from fossil fuels.
The amount of minerals the world will require to make that shift is enormous. If the world is serious about reaching its climate goals — reaching carbon zero by 2050 — many vast mines will have to start producing billions of tons of copper, lithium, and other minerals from the ground — six times more production than is currently taking place. Green technology — solar panels, batteries, windmills — requires a lot more minerals than traditional energy technology. There is zero debate about the benefits of switching — no matter what politicians and fossil fuel lobbyists say about windmills killing birds — but there will have to be a lot of big holes dug in the ground. These holes will do significant damage to ecosystems, and communities will oppose them, threatening the transition.
Relying on a risky ring
Consider the “Ring of Fire,” a vast area of mineral deposits under the peat bogs of Northern Ontario. More than 26,000 claims have been staked in the ring-shaped area where volcanic deposits contain rich veins of platinum, palladium, copper, nickel, gold, cobalt, and chromite worth tens of billions of dollars – if it can be mined. But as the Wall Street Journal explained this week, that is no sure thing.
Indigenous communities are divided. Some want the development and opportunities that the mines could bring, while others are horrified by the prospect of a big new mining road going through, disrupting delicate northern ecosystems, and releasing large amounts of carbon locked in the peat.
In Canada, courts can kill projects if the proponents fail to consult sufficiently with Indigenous communities.
Proponents do not always do a good job on consultations, and it is also not always clear who has to be consulted. A gas pipeline in British Columbia ran into unexpected problems, for instance, when a judge ruled that hereditary chiefs, not just elected chiefs, have a legal right to be consulted about developments on their territory.
Also, Canada has committed to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is expected to give Indigenous opponents of projects new arguments to make in court.
“From a proponent’s perspective, when they look at Canada and want to invest in Canada, that is a huge risk,” says Heather Exner-Pirot, director of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
“It's very uncertain,” says Exner-Pirot, “and proponents don’t like that.”
Cutting through the red tape is not an easy task
Canada has promised to unveil a plan this year to make the regulatory process smoother. Biden, meanwhile, has thrown his support behind efforts in the United States to reform permitting processes.
Beyond that, both countries are offering financial incentives, but regulatory processes have not gotten easier – and they may not.
“A lot of what the federal government does is fairly schizophrenic,” says Ian Lange, program director for Mineral and Energy Economics at the Colorado School of Mines. “Everyone has their own little fiefdom that they can affect. And so they might try. But, you know, the real changes have to come with legislative changes.”
When Biden visited Ottawa in March, he and Trudeau promised to take steps toward “reliable and sustainable critical mineral supply chains,” but it is not clear that either can deliver.
“We have a tightly divided Congress, and Canada has a minority government, that's a reflection of the same grumpy-electorate kind of vibe, where they're not really happy with where things are going,” says Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson Center's Canada Institute. “But that undermines the political capital on either side of Trudeau, who has been in office for a long time, and Biden, who I think has some struggles on his popularity front.”
But neither country can proceed with the transition away from fossil fuels without vastly bigger supplies of minerals, and that won’t happen unless investors decide to put their money down.
“Here's the thing about mines, they are very slow money,” says Exner-Pirot. “So you're putting up billions of dollars up front, before a single ounce of ore is ever taken out, and you get your money back. And now with interest rates, it's very expensive to wait 14 years of putting in money and the cost of capital on that before you get any kind of return on investment.”
“You're talking about millions and millions of dollars, so the timelines need to be shortened.”
Greenpeace activists hold a protest demanding an end to deep-sea mining in Prague, Czech Republic.
Jamaica hosts deep-sea mining talks
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Nauru wants to find out. The tiny Pacific island nation is trying to convince the global community to grant it permission to mine precious metals hidden deep beneath the oceans.
Starting on Monday, representatives from 168 countries will gather in the Jamaican capital of Kingston for at least three weeks of UN-hosted talks about whether to allow deep-sea mining in international waters. The meeting was triggered by the expiration of a two-year moratorium on the practice after Nauru filed in 2021 the first-ever application for a commercial license to harvest rocks containing metals like cobalt or copper.
There are two fiercely opposed geopolitical camps. On one side, France, Germany, and Chile are leading the charge for a pause on mining the seafloor until scientists better understand the risk to the marine ecosystem. On the other, China, Russia, South Korea and (!) Norway believe that deep-sea mining is fair game to find metals to power green tech.
Environmentalists fear that anything short of a new ban will cause irreparable damage to a part of the planet that's been less explored than the moon. But pro-mining countries argue that the world can no longer rely exclusively on unstable sources like the Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces 70% of the world's cobalt. And of course, China is keen to further dominate the global supply of rare-earth minerals.
What do you think? Let us know here.