The war in Ukraine isn’t just about safeguarding democracy or demonstrating Western resolve — it’s also about the future of the global economic order. As the Trump administration considers how to deliver on the president’s promise to bring this war to a close, it risks neglecting a critical, untapped asset: Ukraine’s immense reserves of lithium, titanium, graphite, and rare earth metals. These critical minerals are the foundation of modern industry and essential for military technology, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing. They also have the potential to transform Ukraine into an invaluable partner amid the global scramble for resources and geopolitical advantage.
American leaders tend to treat war as a military problem rather than a geopolitical one, fixating on tactical gains while neglecting the economic and strategic conditions necessary to win the peace. As a result, the United States has spent trillions on warfighting while failing to capitalize on postwar opportunities. Now, after committing over $175 billion to Ukraine’s defense, Washington risks making a similar mistake: walking away without ensuring that Ukraine’s economic potential strengthens the West rather than its adversaries.
Far from an agrarian backwater, Ukraine is one of the most resource-rich nations in the world, particularly in the critical raw materials central to 21st-century competition. Moreover, its proximity to the industrial centers of Europe and access to Black Sea trading routes provide it with geopolitical advantages over potential export competitors in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. While Moscow has seized key mineral-rich regions, Kyiv still controls nearly two-thirds of its reserves, valued at tens of trillions of dollars. Under the right conditions, Ukraine could become a major player in the critical supply chains driving economic competitiveness — a new “battery basket” for the Western world.
Hopefully, President Donald Trump will not ignore the geoeconomic considerations necessary to win the peace. It’s not too late for Washington to enact a strategy that prioritizes Ukraine’s control over as much of these reserves as possible. This would provide Ukraine with a robust foundation for its future economy, facilitate the diversification of Western supply chains to a closely aligned partner, and help secure the West’s future as a manufacturing and technological powerhouse. Abandoning Ukraine risks America’s rivals gaining control over this vast reservoir of natural wealth and tightening their grip on the building blocks of economic dynamism.
Europe’s “Battery Basket”
From the medieval period through the 18th century, Ukraine’s economic fortunes turned principally on its agricultural productivity. The most fertile lands in the central and southern regions benefit from a wide distribution of chernozem — or “black earth” — a rich soil found in parts of the Eurasian steppe and the North American Great Plains. Control over this land was a strategic asset for a succession of Eastern European powers, allowing them to feed their populations and trade the bountiful surplus. During this long historical sweep, Ukraine cemented its reputation as “Europe’s breadbasket.” As the area industrialized, its agricultural assets were augmented by the mining of iron ore deposits and coal seams in the Donbas and Kryvyi regions. These latent and actualized economic resources were central to the struggle for supremacy in Europe through the 19th and 20th centuries and formed the basis of Russian and Soviet strength. As Dominic Lieven memorably wrote: “Without Ukraine’s vast population, industry, and agriculture, early-twentieth-century Russia would have ceased to be a great power.”
Though the modern sources of economic dynamism have evolved away from grain and steel, Ukraine continues to occupy a central role in the future of global power. This is due to its immense, yet untapped, reservoirs of the critical raw materials necessary to produce a range of advanced commercial and military technology. While its traditional agricultural and fossil fuel resources still play an important role in the global economy, these reserves of critical raw materials have the potential to sway the future of geoeconomic and geopolitical competition.
Due to Ukraine’s diverse geological footprint, it possesses around 5 percent of the world’s mineral deposits despite occupying just 0.4 percent of its land area. Its natural wealth is spread across approximately 20,000 mineral deposits, which include 117 of the 120 most widely used minerals and metals, 22 of the 50 strategic materials recognized by the United States as critical, and 25 of the 34 identified by the European Union as critically important. Estimations of the total value of these deposits range in the tens of trillions of dollars.
Among the most significant are its reserves of lithium, graphite, titanium-bearing minerals like ilmenite and rutile, uranium, and rare earth metals. According to the Ukrainian Geological Survey, Ukraine holds the largest lithium and titanium reserves in Europe and is among the top 12 in global reserves of uranium, which has the potential to help bridge yawning shortfalls in production requirements for nuclear energy. Researchers at the University of Kyiv estimate that Ukraine has the world’s sixth-largest graphite reserves, larger than all other Western states combined. Kyiv has also identified six large deposits of rare earth metals such as beryllium and gallium that are estimated to be the highest recoverable supply of rare earths in Europe. One of these rare earth deposits, located at Novopoltavske, is potentially the largest in the world.
These resources are critical for many of the advanced technologies that will define global power for generations. Lithium and graphite are both key components in the lithium-ion batteries powering electric vehicles and high-capacity energy storage systems. Titanium’s strength, lightness, and non-corrosive qualities make it indispensable in the production of advanced aerospace and weapons systems. Uranium is vital to nuclear power generation and armor-piercing ammunition. Rare earth metals underpin a gamut of sophisticated technologies, notably advanced semiconductor production. Ukraine’s relative abundance of these materials stands in marked contrast with the rest of Europe, which relies heavily on imports from Australia, Africa, and China. Developing the mining and production capacities necessary to harness these resources could position Ukraine as Europe’s “battery basket” of the future.
Commercial profits from this resource wealth were limited through the Soviet and post-Soviet years. Despite their multi-trillion-dollar value, total Ukrainian mineral and metal production output was only $15 billion in 2021. Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine was actively mining only 15 percent of its known deposits. The lack of notable development is due to a combination of structural, political, and economic factors. Fragmentation and corruption after 1991, outdated industrial and mining technology, and Russian predations after 2014 hamstrung sustained investment in the sector. Beginning in 2017, Kyiv redoubled its attempts to court investors through digital land auctions and expanded partnerships with the European Union. The launch of the E.U.–Ukraine Strategic Partnership on Raw Materials focused on harnessing Ukraine’s mineral resources, integrating them into critical supply chains, and shepherding capital investment. By 2021, Kyiv’s attempts to profit from its mineral wealth appeared to be bearing fruit. For example, European Lithium moved to secure rights to two lithium deposits with the aim of becoming Europe’s largest lithium supplier.
European Lithium’s bid, like Ukraine’s critical material ambitions writ large, collapsed following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Capital investment dried up, critical infrastructure for resource extraction was either lost or destroyed, and Ukraine was unable to ship many of its exports via the Black Sea. Kyiv’s focus turned from cultivating its vast resource wealth to keeping it out of Russia’s rapacious hands.
The Fight for Ukraine’s Buried Treasure
Experts have offered a range of explanations for Putin’s full-scale invasion: from his ambitions to reconstruct the Soviet Empire to concerns about NATO influence in Ukraine to features of his post-pandemic psyche. However, beneath these largely speculative narratives lie clear material enticements: the possible acquisition of Ukraine’s vast resources. Putin’s war of aggression has enabled Russia to gain control over nearly 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, including significant reserves of minerals that Ukraine had hoped to leverage into a promising economic future.
Russia has been abetted in its theft by geography. A sizeable share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth is concentrated east of the Dnipro River. One estimate holds that Russia has captured 33 percent of Ukraine’s critical raw materials deposits since 2014. A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the value of this at $5–$8 trillion. Among Kyiv’s stolen assets are over 10 major mineral sites, including one of the lithium sites eyed by European Lithium and the massive rare earth metals deposit at Novopoltavske. Including stolen fossil fuel deposits, the value of Russian conquests currently exceed $12 trillion.
Preventing further loss of its territory and, by extension, its natural resources has been a central objective of Ukraine’s valiant self-defense. Fortunately, Ukraine still controls the bulk of its mineral reserves, including significant rare earth metals deposits in the Dnipropetrovsk region, along with major pockets of graphite, titanium, cobalt, and manganese along the western bank of the Dnipro River.
Ukraine’s resource riches have also piqued interest within the corridors of Washington. For some American policymakers, Ukraine’s potential as a critical raw material partner presents a unique opportunity to diversify supply chains away from its geopolitical rivals. In the months before the full-scale war, Congress passed legislation mandating the State Department investigate the feasibility of utilizing titanium sources from Ukraine as a potential alternative to Chinese sources.
America’s concerns about China’s dominance over critical materials are well-grounded. China controls 85 percent of global rare earth refining, 95 percent of gallium production, and 67 percent of natural graphite mining, along with significant shares of cobalt and lithium refinement. China has also developed a firm hold on global titanium production, reaching 66 percent in 2023. By consolidating its access to these materials and their refinement, Beijing has established vertically integrated supply chains that power industries like semiconductors, batteries, and renewable energy. Moreover, China has deployed its control as a coercive tool against Washington, as evidenced by its December ban on exporting critical minerals like gallium, germanium, and graphite to the United States. This dominance presents strategic risks for the United States, potentially disrupting key sectors such as defense, technology, and clean energy.
Ukraine has deftly played off America’s concerns to position itself as a valuable partner in de-risking critical supply chains. As part of his “Victory Plan,” President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his Western backers “a special agreement for the joint protection of the country’s critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential.” This included a secret annex that likely included more detailed arrangements for Western investment and development opportunities. Ukrainian officials have also underlined the risks to the United States should Moscow gain greater sway over these assets and seek to exploit them in partnership with Beijing.
Parts of the Republican foreign policy establishment have seized on this logic to push for greater support for Kyiv in the war. Speaking in June, Sen. Lindsay Graham made the case bluntly:
They’re sitting on 10 to 12 trillion dollars of critical minerals in Ukraine. They could be the richest country in all of Europe. I don’t want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China. If we help Ukraine now, they can become the best business partner we ever dreamed of, that 10 to 12 trillion dollars of critical mineral assets could be used by Ukraine and the West, not given to Putin and China… To give Putin 10 or 12 trillion dollars for critical minerals that he will share with China is ridiculous.
However, the issue of resource control is just beginning to filter into the mainstream strategic discourse. Trump’s recent comments expressing interest in securing American access to Ukrainian rare earth metals dovetail with Kyiv’s strategy of offering development partnerships in exchange for enhanced military and diplomatic support. The president’s statement is one step in the right direction insofar as it acknowledges the material stakes of the conflict. However, it should be noted that Ukraine’s resource wealth extends far beyond just rare earth metals.
As the fight for Ukraine’s underground riches drags on, the Trump administration would do well to consider the risks and opportunities presented by a cessation of hostilities. Failure to integrate resource calculations into Western strategy could have profound strategic consequences, entrenching rival states’ control over the inputs for economic dynamism and depriving the West of an invaluable partner in achieving greater technological and manufacturing self-sufficiency.
Policies for Peace
To secure the foundations of Western economic power, the new administration should devise a policy framework that allows for capitalization of and cooperation over Ukraine’s critical raw material reserves. The two essential features of such a strategy are institutional links to facilitate and secure rapid Western investment in the mineral extraction sector and a credible deterrent against future Russian aggression. Such a framework should also draw on the support and resources of interested partners in the European Union.
On the investment side, the United States could spearhead the creation of a U.S.–E.U.–Ukrainian investment consortium designed to attract and mobilize capital for Ukraine’s mining sector. By providing government-backed funds to de-risk investments and offering tax incentives to Western companies, this initiative could facilitate the rapid development of strategic resources like lithium, graphite, titanium, and rare earth metals. Alongside this, Washington should work with Kyiv to establish a mineral export control framework and investment screening processes that privilege Western access and prevent Chinese penetration. These transparency mechanisms and joint ventures between Ukrainian and Western entities are essential to ensuring that investment flows are secure, strategic, and free from malign external influence.
To complement these measures, the United States could spearhead infrastructure development financing — focusing on rebuilding rail and port infrastructure; expanding power generation and transmission; and constructing the refineries, smelters, and storage facilities necessary for mining operations. Standing up special economic zones in resource-rich regions along the Dnipro could streamline investment processes by providing favorable regulations, investment guarantees, and incentives for technology transfer. Finally, the United States and European Union should back an anti-corruption program tailored to the mining sector to enhance investor confidence and ensure responsible resource management. By fostering public–private collaboration and integrating Ukraine into Western supply chains through long-term trade agreements, these policies will enable Ukraine to leverage its mineral wealth for national recovery while securing a stronger Western geoeconomic position.
However, since Ukraine remains a high-risk jurisdiction for investment, any credible plan for stimulating private sector engagement will require clear and robust mechanisms to ensure Ukraine’s future security and protect new capital. The specter of another Russian attack following a period of rearmament will loom large over any investment calculations in New York, London, or Brussels. While formal NATO admission seems unlikely, the United States could throw its support behind a range of other multilateral frameworks in service of deterring Russia.
For example, the U.K.-led Joint Expeditionary Force, a multinational military partnership with the Nordic and Baltic states, could provide the institutional and operational scaffolding necessary to integrate Kyiv into Europe’s security architecture. The Joint Expeditionary Force could leverage real political clout and a large pool of high-readiness forces to provide Ukraine with initial guarantees while NATO allies coordinate on mechanisms to reinforce deterrence over the long term. For its part, the United States could encourage deeper Polish involvement with the Joint Expeditionary Force as a means of providing the group with a sizeable land force to ensure stability along a demilitarized line in eastern Ukraine, while also offering temporary support in the form of airlift as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to bridge operational gaps until European states develop sufficient indigenous capacities. This is one, but by no means the only, possible option for achieving the kind of robust security guarantees necessary to promote and protect future investment in Ukraine’s critical materials sector.
In any event, Washington should also increase its provision of advanced missile defense and anti-air systems to Kyiv. Such systems will be instrumental in protecting critical infrastructure from future assaults and instilling a degree of security within the Ukrainian public. Tactical support should also be complemented by clear strategic deterrence signals from Washington. The United States should make it clear to the Kremlin that future aggression will be met by coordinated military action from Western partners.
Unlocking Ukraine’s massive untapped mineral wealth represents an opportunity to both secure Kyiv’s long-term economic prospects and insulate critical Western supply chains during a period of heightened geoeconomic and geopolitical tensions. Such an effort will require sustained engagement from Washington and its partners in Europe. It would also not be without risks or challenges. However, the new administration should carefully consider the opportunities presented and build a diplomatic and military strategy that allows the West to benefit from this providential natural endowment.
J.C. Ellis is a PhD candidate with the Centre for Geopolitics at the University of Cambridge.
Image: Midjourney.
Jesus Christ is King
