As Trump pursues trade wars and the annexation of territories for natural resources, access to Ukraine’s minerals could strain transatlantic relations. Given Europe’s lack of resources and limited military power to secure supplies, even Ukraine’s modest wealth might be worth negotiating for.
Special Report for InDepthReports
As global power dynamics shift and strategic competition intensifies, Ukraine’s mineral resources have become the subject of an increasingly popular narrative: that whoever controls Ukraine’s underground wealth will gain a decisive advantage in energy security and global power projection. But upon closer examination, this idea proves to be more illusion than reality.
For most global powers particularly the United States and China Ukraine’s mineral wealth is of little strategic significance. What Ukraine possesses can generally be found elsewhere in larger quantities, with better infrastructure, more favorable investment climates, and clearer paths to commercial viability. Europe, with its own unique vulnerabilities, is the only actor for whom Ukraine’s modest mineral endowment might hold genuine relevance.
The Mirage of Strategic Abundance
To accurately assess Ukraine’s mineral value, we must begin by drawing a critical distinction between resources and reserves. Resources refer to the minerals present underground, while reserves are those quantities that are proven to be extractable in economically viable conditions. The mining industry standard assumes that, on average, it takes around sixteen years to move from exploration to extraction, with twelve of those years consumed by efforts to determine whether extraction is commercially feasible.
This difference matters. In strategic planning — particularly in timelines of five to fifteen years — Ukraine’s mineral assets are not poised to alter the global critical minerals landscape in any significant way.
The American Lens: A Strategic Afterthought
Under the Trump administration, securing access to natural resources emerged as a core rationale behind certain geopolitical moves — from launching trade wars to publicly entertaining the idea of purchasing Greenland. Ukraine, in this context, became part of a broader transactional worldview in which relationships were defined not by alliances or values, but by deals and commodities.
Yet even within that logic, Ukraine’s minerals don’t offer a compelling case. For example, Ukraine holds just about 2% of the world’s known economically recoverable uranium resources, dwarfed by Australia’s 28%, Kazakhstan’s 13%, Canada’s 10%, and Niger’s 5%. Its titanium and graphite reserves are even more negligible — each under 1% of global totals.
Moreover, while Soviet-era studies identified potential deposits of rare earth elements and lithium in Ukraine, no serious modern exploration or development projects exist. According to S&P Global’s mining projects database, a leading industry benchmark, Ukraine has zero active projects — in any stage — for rare earths or lithium.
Despite this, the Trump administration pushed Kyiv to sign a memorandum of understanding on rare earth extraction — a move more symbolic than strategic, and one that culminated in what some observers described as a diplomatic humiliation for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his February Oval Office visit.
Why pursue such a move when the material stakes are so small?
The answer may lie not in what Ukraine has underground, but in what its minerals symbolize. In an era where traditional American foreign policy commitments are under question, critical minerals provide a technocratic and politically palatable rationale for continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine. In the absence of a coherent values-based foreign policy, strategic resource access offers a transactional justification for a continued American footprint in Eastern Europe.
Europe’s Predicament: Strategic Dependence Meets Geographic Opportunity
While Ukraine’s mineral potential may be an afterthought for Washington or Beijing, for Europe, the calculus is different. The continent is materially poor in critical raw materials when compared to its strategic peers. Though Germany and Finland have small lithium deposits, and Norway has some titanium and graphite, Europe’s domestic mineral base is insufficient for the industrial ambitions tied to its green transition and digital sovereignty agendas.
What makes matters worse is Europe’s limited ability to independently secure overseas resources. The colonial empires that once guaranteed raw material flows have long since collapsed, leaving modern Europe exposed to a fragile and often politically contingent global supply chain.
The Suez Crisis of 1956 was a turning point — exposing just how vulnerable European powers could be when their access to strategic materials was blocked. While countries like France and the United Kingdom still maintain blue-water navies, their ability to guarantee global shipping lanes is modest compared to that of the United States. They cannot be “everywhere at once,” and certainly not across the vast geography required to secure global mineral flows.
In this light, Ukraine’s relative proximity becomes strategically important. Its mineral reserves may not be large, but they are accessible, politically aligned, and within Europe’s near abroad. In a landscape defined by scarcity and uncertainty, even marginal assets can shift the balance — especially when they reduce dependence on adversarial suppliers.
Kyiv at the Crossroads of Europe’s Strategic Agenda
As Ukraine accelerates its EU accession process, it is already subject to much of the EU’s competition and regulatory framework. This means any future resource development agreements — whether with American firms or others — will have to be navigated under Brussels’ increasingly assertive industrial and environmental policies.
The stage is therefore set for possible transatlantic tensions, not unlike the disagreements over how to handle the war in Ukraine or the reconstruction of its eastern territories. If the United States continues to pursue exclusive or preferential mineral agreements with Kyiv, it may find itself at odds with European efforts to integrate Ukraine into a single market governed by common rules.
In that context, access to Ukrainian minerals becomes more than a matter of supply — it becomes a matter of sovereignty, competition, and geopolitical influence. The EU’s raw materials strategy has already emphasized the need for “strategic autonomy.” For Brussels, Ukraine offers one of the few credible options to begin reducing dependence on China for rare earths, or Russia for titanium and uranium.
A Story More About Power Than Resources
Ukraine’s mineral wealth — while limited — occupies an outsized role in the strategic imagination of today’s geopolitical players. For Washington, it serves as a veneer for maintaining influence in Europe. For Brussels, it represents a possible stepping stone toward reducing strategic vulnerabilities. And for Kyiv, it is a bargaining chip — one that could help secure investment, integration, and international support.
But we should be clear: Ukraine is not the next Saudi Arabia of critical minerals. Its true importance lies not in the abundance of what lies beneath its soil, but in the scarcity of options elsewhere — especially for Europe.
In the end, what’s buried in Ukraine may not transform the global energy map, but it is already reshaping how the West defines its priorities, negotiates its alliances, and projects its power in a world of tightening resource constraints.