BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

KYIV — The latest draft of a peace plan agreed by U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators would see Kyiv withdrawing its troops from the eastern territories claimed by Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Briefing reporters in Kyiv on Tuesday, Zelenskyy said the updated plan contemplated the designation of the eastern Donbas region — the majority of which is currently occupied by Moscow’s troops — as a demilitarized “free economic zone” in which neither Ukrainian nor Russian forces are present. Zelenskyy stressed that Ukraine is against the withdrawal, which is one of Russia’s top demands. But, he added, “there are two options: either the war continues, or something will have to be decided regarding all potential economic zones.” The Ukrainian leader said the latest version of the plan — an update of a Trump administration proposal that both Kyiv and the European Union had initially dismissed as a “non-starter” — maintains the proposed security guarantees from the U.S., NATO and European partners that are equivalent to those outlined in Article 5 of the transatlantic alliance’s treaty. “If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a coordinated military response, all global sanctions against Russia will be restored,” he said, adding that the guarantees would also be considered invalid if Kyiv takes any unprovoked military action against Moscow. Zelenskyy noted that Washington had dropped text from a previous version of the plan that proposed the U.S. receive compensation for the security guarantees. The plan additionally proposes Russia legally adopt a strategy of non-aggression towards Ukraine and Europe. The text also accepts Kyiv’s eventual accession to the European Union, acknowledges the country’s right to demand reparations from Russia, and endorses the creation of dedicated investment instruments to fund the country’s reconstruction. The revised text also calls for the joint administration of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant by Ukrainian, Russian and American authorities. Kyiv is loath to allow Moscow to manage the complex, which has been the site of fierce fighting, but is willing to partner with the Trump administration on running infrastructure Washington considers crucial for future minerals mining operations in the country. Zelenskyy said the nearby city of Enerhodar, which is currently occupied by Russia, would be a candidate for demilitarization if the U.S. insists on designating economic zones within Ukraine. But, he added, for the move to be legal, a referendum would have to be held to endorse that decision. The plan also calls on Ukraine and Russia to introduce programs in their educational curricula that promote tolerance of different cultures. Kyiv would additionally be expected to implement EU regulations to protect minority religions and languages. While those measures are likely to clash with Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to “de-Russify” the country and forge a new sense of nationhood, Zelenskyy said that adopting the rules are part of joining the EU, and he challenged Moscow to enact similar regulations, “if they dare.” The Trump administration’s original peace proposal was negotiated by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian officials earlier this month. That 28-point document, which was widely interpreted to be molded to Moscow’s demands, has been substantially revised, and was the subject of trilateral talks held in Miami this past weekend. Trump last week said a peace deal is “closer than ever.” Zelenskyy on Wednesday told journalists that if an agreement is reached, a full ceasefire would enter into force immediately. Final approval of the document would require its ratification by the Ukrainian parliament, as well as its approval in a nationwide referendum.

Donald Trump’s drive to secure peace in Ukraine must not let Vladimir Putin off the hook for war crimes committed by Russian forces, a top EU official has warned, effectively setting a new red line for a deal.  In an interview with POLITICO, Michael McGrath, the European commissioner for justice and democracy, said negotiators must ensure the push for a ceasefire does not result in Russia escaping prosecution.  His comments reflect concerns widely held in European capitals that the original American blueprint for a deal included the promise of a “full amnesty for actions committed during the war,” alongside plans to reintegrate Russia into the world economy. The Trump team’s push to rehabilitate the Kremlin chief comes despite international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians in Bucha, Mariupol and elsewhere.  “I don’t think history will judge kindly any effort to wipe the slate clean for Russian crimes in Ukraine,” McGrath said. “They must be held accountable for those crimes and that will be the approach of the European Union in all of these discussions. “Were we to do so, to allow for impunity for those crimes, we would be sowing the seeds of the next round of aggression and the next invasion,” he added. “And I believe that that would be a historic mistake of huge proportions.” Protesters in London, June 2025. There has been international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians. | Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Ukrainian authorities say they have opened investigations into more than 178,000 alleged Russian crimes since the start of the war. Last month, a United Nations commission found Russian authorities had committed crimes against humanity in targeting Ukrainian residents through drone attacks, and the war crimes of forcible transfer and deportation of civilians.  “We cannot give up on the rights of the victims of Russian aggression and Russian crimes,” McGrath said. “Millions of lives have been taken or destroyed, and people forcibly removed, and we have ample evidence.”  The EU and others have worked to set up a new special tribunal for the crime of aggression with the aim of bringing Russian leaders to justice for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022. In March 2023, judges at the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin, naming him “allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population [children]” from Ukraine. But Trump and his team have so far shown little interest in prosecuting Putin. In fact, the U.S. president has consistently described his Russian counterpart in positive terms, often talking about how he is able to have a “good conversation” with Putin. Trump has expressed the hope of building new economic and energy partnerships with Russia, and the pair have even discussed organizing ice hockey matches in Russia and the U.S. once the war is over.   The draft 28-point peace plan that Trump’s team circulated last week continues in a similar vein.  It states that “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy” and invited to rejoin the G8 after being expelled in 2014 following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. “The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities,” the document said. The U.S. peace plan proposes to lift sanctions against Russia in stages, though European leaders have pushed back to emphasize that the removal of EU sanctions will be for them to decide. Not everyone in Europe wants to maintain the squeeze on Moscow, however. Hungary has repeatedly stalled new sanctions, especially on oil and gas, for which it relies on Russia. Senior politicians in Germany, too, have floated the idea of lifting sanctions on the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia. 

President Donald Trump is no longer content to stand aloof from the global alliance trying to combat climate change. His new goal is to demolish it — and replace it with a new coalition reliant on U.S. fossil fuels. Trump’s increasingly assertive energy diplomacy is one of the biggest challenges awaiting the world leaders, diplomats and business luminaries gathering for a United Nations summit in Brazil to try to advance the fight against global warming. The U.S. president will not be there — unlike the leaders of countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, who will speak before delegates from nearly 200 nations on Thursday and Friday. But his efforts to undermine the Paris climate agreement already loom over the talks, as does his initial success in drawing support from other countries. “It’s not enough to just withdraw from” the 2015 pact and the broader U.N. climate framework that governs the annual talks, said Richard Goldberg, who worked as a top staffer on Trump’s White House National Energy Dominance Council and is now senior adviser to the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “You have to degrade it. You have to deter it. You have to potentially destroy it.” Trump’s approach includes striking deals demanding that Japan, Europe and other trading partners buy more U.S. natural gas and oil, using diplomatic strong-arming to deter foreign leaders from cutting fossil fuel pollution, and making the United States inhospitable to clean energy investment. Unlike during his first term, when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement but sent delegates to the annual U.N. climate talks anyway, he now wants to render them ineffective and starved of purpose by drawing as many other countries as possible away from their own clean energy goals, according to Cabinet officials’ public remarks and interviews with 20 administration allies and alumni, foreign diplomats and veterans of the annual climate negotiations. Those efforts are at odds with the goals of the climate summits, which included a Biden administration-backed pledge two years ago for the world to transition away from fossil fuels. Slowing or reversing that shift could send global temperatures soaring above the goals set in Paris a decade ago, threatening a spike in the extreme weather that is already pummeling countries and economies. The White House says Trump’s campaign to unleash American oil, gas and coal is for the United States’ benefit — and the world’s. “The Green New Scam would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his commonsense energy agenda — which is focused on utilizing the liquid gold under our feet to strengthen our grid stability and drive down costs for American families and businesses,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.” ‘WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PARIS AGREEMENT DIE’ The Trump administration is declining to send any high-level representatives to the COP30 climate talks, which will formally begin Monday in Belém, Brazil, according to a White House official who declined to comment on the record about whether any U.S. government officials would participate. Trump’s view that the annual negotiations are antithetical to his energy and economic agenda is also spreading among other Republican officials. Many GOP leaders, including 17 state attorneys general, argued last month that attending the summit would only legitimize the proceedings and its expected calls for ditching fossil fuels more swiftly. Climate diplomats from other countries say they’ve gotten the message about where the U.S. stands now — and are prepared to act without Washington. “We have a large country, a president, and a vice president who would like to see the Paris Agreement die,” Laurence Tubiana, the former French government official credited as a key architect of the 2015 climate pact, said of the United States. “The U.S. will not play a major role” at the summit, said Jochen Flasbarth, undersecretary in the German Ministry of Environmental Affairs. “The world is collectively outraged, and so we will focus — as will everyone else — on engaging in talks with those who are driving the process forward.” Trump and his allies have described the stakes in terms of a zero-sum contest between the United States and its main economic rival, China: Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they say, are a complete win for China, which sells the bulk of the world’s solar, wind, battery and electric vehicle technology. That’s a contrast from the approach of former President Joe Biden, who pushed a massive U.S. investment in green technologies as the only way for America to outcompete China in developing the energy sources of the future. In the Trump worldview, stalling that energy transition benefits the United States, the globe’s top producer of oil and natural gas, along with many of the technologies and services to produce, transport and burn the stuff. “If [other countries] don’t rely on this technology, then that’s less power to China,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who served in the U.S. Transportation Department during Trump’s first term and is now director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. TRUMP FINDS ALLIES THIS TIME Two big developments have shaped the president’s new thinking on how to counteract the international fight against climate change, said George David Banks, who was Trump’s international climate adviser during the first administration. The first was the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed and Biden signed in 2022, which promised hundreds of billions of dollars to U.S. clean energy projects. Banks said the legislation, enacted entirely on partisan lines, made renewable energy a political target in the minds of Trump and his fossil-fuel backers. The second is Trump’s aggressive use of U.S. trading power during his second term to wring concessions from foreign governments, Banks said. Trump has required his agencies to identify obstacles for U.S. exports, and the United Nations’ climate apparatus may be deemed a barrier for sales of oil, gas and coal. Trump’s strategy is resonating with some fossil fuel-supporting nations, potentially testing the climate change comity at COP30. Those include emerging economies in Africa and Latin America, petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, and European nations feeling a cost-of-living strain that is feeding a resurgent right wing. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright drew applause in March at a Washington gathering called the Powering Africa Summit, where he called it “nonsense” for financiers and Western nations to vilify coal-fired power. He also asserted that U.S. natural gas exports could supply African and Asian nations with more of their electricity. Wright cast the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 — the target dozens of nations have embraced — as “sinister,” contending it consigns developing nations to poverty and lower living standards. The U.S. about-face was welcome, Sierra Leone mining and minerals minister Julius Daniel Mattai said during the conference. Western nations had kneecapped financing for offshore oil investments and worked to undercut public backing for fossil fuel projects, Mattai said, criticizing Biden’s administration for only being interested in renewable energy. But now Trump has created room for nations to use their own resources, Mattai said. “With the new administration having such a massive appetite for all sorts of energy mixes, including oil and gas, we do believe there’s an opportunity to explore our offshore oil investments,” he said in an interview. TURNING UP THE HEAT ON TRADING PARTNERS Still, Banks acknowledged that Trump probably can’t halt the spread of clean energy. Fossil fuels may continue to supply energy in emerging economies for some time, he said, but the private sector remains committed to clean energy to meet the U.N.’s goals of curbing climate change. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t try. The administration’s intent to pressure foreign leaders into a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance was on full display last month at a London meeting of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization where U.S. Cabinet secretaries and diplomats succeeded in thwarting a proposed carbon emissions tax on global shipping. That coup followed a similar push against Beijing a month earlier, when Mexico — the world’s biggest buyer of Chinese cars — slapped a 50 percent tariff on automotive imports from China after pressure from the Trump administration. China accused the U.S. of “coercion.” Trump’s attempt to flood global markets with ever growing amounts of U.S. fossil fuels is even more ambitious, though so far incomplete. The EU and Japan — under threat of tariffs — have promised to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on U.S. energy products. But so far, new and binding contracts have not appeared. Trump has also tried to push China, Japan and South Korea to invest in a $44 billion liquefied natural gas project in Alaska, so far to no avail. In the face of potential tariffs and other U.S. pressure, European ministers and diplomats are selling the message that victory at COP30 might simply come in the form of presenting a united front in favor of climate action. That could mean joining with other major economies such as China and India, and forming common cause with smaller, more vulnerable countries, to show that Trump is isolated. “I’m sure the EU and China will find themselves on opposite sides of many debates,” said the EU’s lead climate negotiator, Jacob Werksman. “But we have ways of working with them. … We are both betting heavily on the green transition.” Avoiding a faceplant may actually be easier if the Trump administration does decide to turn up in Brazil, said Li Shuo, the director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington. “If the U.S. is there and active, I’d expect the rest of the world, including the EU and China, to rest aside their rhetorical games in front of a larger challenge,” Li wrote via text. And for countries attending COP, there is still some hope of a long-term win. Solar, wind, geothermal and other clean energy investments are continuing apace, even if Trump and the undercurrents that led to his reelection have hindered them, said Nigel Purvis, CEO of climate consulting firm Climate Advisers and a former State Department climate official. Trump’s attempts to kill the shipping fee, EU methane pollution rules and Europe’s corporate sustainability framework are one thing, Purvis said. But when it comes to avoiding Trump’s retribution, there is “safety in numbers” for the rest of the world that remains in the Paris Agreement, he added. And even if the progress is slower than originally hoped, those nations have committed to shifting their energy systems off fossil fuels. “We’re having slower climate action than otherwise would be the case. But we’re really talking about whether Trump is going to be able to blow up the regime,” Purvis said. “And I think the answer is ‘No.’” Nicolas Camut in Paris, Zia Weise in Brussels and Josh Groeneveld in Berlin contributed to this report.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered his government to develop a roadmap for mining rare earth metals, as Moscow seeks to join the global race for the strategically vital resources. Putin called for an “action plan” to be ready by Dec. 1 “for the long-term development of the extraction and production of rare and rare earth metals,” state-owned Russian media outlet TASS reported Tuesday. Rare earths — essential components in everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to wind turbines — are increasingly seen as critical to technology and energy security, earning the attention of leaders such as U.S. President Donald Trump. Russia contributes only about one percent of global rare earth production despite possessing vast reserves. According to the Kremlin’s estimate, the country holds reserves of 15 rare earth metals totaling 28.5 million tons. China currently dominates the market, producing about two-thirds of the world’s supply and accounting for almost half of the EU’s imports. Although the EU has sought to diversify its sources, mining and processing rare earths is complex and costly, leaving the bloc heavily dependent on Beijing. Antonia Zimmermann contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — In the midst of a geopolitical storm, Brussels is racing to put together a new plan by the end of this year to diversify European supply of so-called critical raw materials — such as lithium and copper — away from China.  The thing is: We’ve been here before. So far, the European Commission has provided few details on its new plan, beyond that it would touch upon joint purchasing, stockpiling, recycling of resources and new partnerships. It already addressed those measures two years ago in its first initiative on the issue, the Critical Raw Materials Act.  Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has been forced to act by Beijing’s expansion and tightening of export controls on rare earths and other critical minerals this month, as trade tensions with Washington escalated. Europe was caught in the crossfire — China accounts for 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths, and 98 percent of its rare earth permanent magnets. The new “RESourceEU” plan is expected to follow a similar model to the REPowerEU plan, under which the Commission in 2022 proposed investing €225 billion to diversify energy supply routes after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.  That has European industry daring to hope that Brussels will do more than just recycle an old initiative and address the main obstacles to diversifying the bloc’s supply chains of minerals it needs for everything from renewable energy to defense applications. The biggest of them all? A lack of cash to back new mining, processing and manufacturing initiatives, both within and outside the EU. “It’s all still very much in its infancy,” said Florian Anderhuber, deputy director general of lobby group Euromines. “We hope that there will be a bigger push that goes beyond the implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act,” he added. “It doesn’t help anyone if this is just a label for things that are already in the pipeline.” CODEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP The EU should not count on any trade reprieve that may result from U.S. President Donald Trump’s meeting with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Thursday. After all, Beijing has shown time and again that it has no reservations about weaponizing economic dependencies. The key question is whether, this time around, pressure will remain high enough for the EU to mobilize brainpower and assets at the kind of scale it did when it sought to break the bloc’s decades-old reliance on Russian oil and gas. “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore,” von der Leyen said as she announced the initiative last weekend. “We learned this lesson painfully with energy; we will not repeat it with critical materials. So it is time to speed up and take the action that is needed.” “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore,” von der Leyen said as she announced the initiative last weekend. | Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images In the here and now, the EU wants to persuade a visiting Chinese delegation at talks in Brussels on Friday to speed up export approvals for its top raw materials importers. In parallel, energy and environment ministers from the G7 group of industrialized nations are slated to wargame how to de-risk their mineral supply chains in Toronto, Canada, on Thursday and Friday. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY When the Commission unveiled its first grand plan to break over-reliance on China in 2023 — the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) — industry leaders and analysts mostly lamented one thing: a lack of funding on the table.  “Money has been a real bottleneck for Europe’s raw materials agenda,” said Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Mining, processing, recycling, and stockpiling all need serious financing.” If the EU fails to free up more resources, experts warn that it is bound to fall short of the goal set in the CRMA, of extracting at least 10 percent of its annual consumption of select minerals by the end of the decade, with no more than 65 percent of some raw materials coming from a single country. It’s a steep target — especially for rare earths, where Beijing has over decades built up a de facto monopoly. While the EU executive has selected strategic projects both within and outside the EU that should benefit from faster permitting than their usual lead times of 10 to 15 years to production, those efforts are yet to bear fruit. “To finance such projects, the next EU budget must provide substantial, dedicated [Critical Raw Material] funding, and financial institutions must deploy innovative de-risking and financing tools,” the European Initiative for Energy Security argues in a new report, calling for a “permanent European Minerals Investment Network.”  “To finance such projects, the next EU budget must provide substantial, dedicated [Critical Raw Material] funding, and financial institutions must deploy innovative de-risking and financing tools,” the European Initiative for Energy Security argues in a new report. | Aris Oikonomou/AFP via Getty Images The REPowerEU plan — a package of documents, including legal acts, recommendations, guidelines and strategies — was mostly financed by loans left over from the bloc’s pandemic recovery program. Similarly, RESourceEU must become “resource strategy backed by real funding,” said Hildegard Bentele, a member of the European Parliament who’s been working on critical minerals for years.  “This requires a European Raw Materials Fund, modelled on successful instruments in several Member States, to support strategic projects across the entire value chain, from extraction to recycling,” the German Christian Democrat said. THAT’LL COST YOU It’s about more than just throwing money at the problem: The Commission’s haste in rolling out its plan is raising doubts that it will meet the needs of a highly complex market — along with concerns that environmental safeguards will be neglected. “As long as European industries can buy cheaper materials from China, other producers do not stand a chance,” warned Gehrke.  In Toronto, G7 ministers will launch a new Critical Minerals Production Alliance (CMPA), a Canadian-led initiative that seeks to secure “transparent, democratic, and environmentally responsible critical minerals,” and also to counter market manipulation of supply chains, said a senior Canadian government official.  This would suggest creating so-called standards-based markets that are ring-fenced to protect critical minerals produced responsibly, to agreed environmental and social standards. A price floor would be set within that market, while minerals produced elsewhere — at lower prices but also lower standards — would face a tariff.  Beyond the immediate funding issues, ramping up mining in the EU and its neighbourhood also comes at a high societal cost. With local resistance to new mines, usually linked to environmental and social concerns, being one of the key obstacles to new projects, investors are often hesitant to pour money into a project that risks being derailed shortly after. “The EU is choosing geopolitical expediency over human rights and ecological integrity, sacrificing frontline communities for a strategy that is neither sustainable nor just, instead of building a durable and values-based autonomy that invests in systemic circularity and rights-based partnerships,” said Diego Marin, a senior policy officer for raw materials and resource justice at the European Environmental Bureau, an NGO.  Jakob Weizman and Camille Gijs contributed reporting from Brussels. Zi-Ann Lum contributed reporting from Toronto, Canada.

BRUSSELS — As Beijing further weaponizes its control over the flow of minerals that Western countries need for their green, defense and digital ambitions, Europe has to face an uncomfortable truth: It won’t escape China’s dominance anytime soon. The Chinese government’s shock imposition earlier in October of sweeping export controls on rare-earth magnets and the raw materials needed to make them has escalated a running trade feud with the United States. The embargo threatens vast — and rapid — collateral damage on the European Union and has forced its way onto the agenda of a high-level summit on Thursday. “A crisis in the supply of critical raw materials is no longer a distant risk. It is on our doorstep,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a pre-summit speech to European lawmakers. “Now, we must accelerate decisively and urgently. We need faster, more reliable supply of critical raw materials, both here in Europe and with trusted partners. I will be ready to propose further measures to ensure Europe’s economic security and I will accelerate what we have already put in motion.” Beijing’s announcement this month drew a fierce rebuke from U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened to hike tariffs on Chinese goods to 100 percent. Trump is due to hold a high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit at the end of October. The EU, which imports nearly all of its rare earths and permanent magnets from the Middle Kingdom, is caught in the crossfire. “We have no interest in escalation,” Maroš Šefčovič, the EU’s trade chief, told reporters Tuesday. “However, this situation casts a shadow over our relationship. Therefore, a prompt resolution is essential.” China and the EU will “intensify contacts at all levels” on the issue, Šefčovič added. Wang Wentao, the Chinese trade minister, has accepted an invitation to come to Brussels in the coming days to discuss the restrictions, Šefčovič said after a two-hour call between the two. The EU is also consulting with the G7 group of industrialized nations on a coordinated response on critical minerals ahead of an Oct. 30-31 ministerial meeting in Canada. Yet, behind the talk of adequate diplomatic responses and potential retaliation there is no escaping the dominance in rare earths that China has built up over decades. For now at least. “In the short term there’s nothing you can do, except try and negotiate with the Chinese,” said Philip Andrews-Speed, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.  HIT WHERE IT HURTS Beijing dominates the entire supply chain of rare earths — a group of 17 minerals used in permanent magnets found in everything from electric vehicles and wind turbines, to F-35 fighter jets and naval vessels. Under its new export controls, importers will need a government license to access not only those permanent magnets, but also the refined metals and alloys that go into them. China already weaponized its leading position in producing and refining critical raw materials — and specifically rare-earth elements like scandium, yttrium and dysprosium — in response to Trump’s first wave of punitive tariffs back in April. Eventually, the White House caved in. This time, again, the Chinese export controls are “a tit-for-tat for U.S. policy,” said a person from the Chinese business sector, granted anonymity to speak candidly. The EU is being hit, too: “The effects are direct and enormous, particularly for the defence sector,” Tobias Gehrke and Janka Oertel of the European Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a commentary. “The EU defence industry risks grinding to a halt as inventory shortfalls could leave it struggling to produce and deliver enough weapons for the war in Ukraine.” China accounts for 61 percent of rare earths extraction and 92 percent of refining, according to the International Energy Agency. It provides nearly 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths, as well as about 98 percent of its rare earth permanent magnets. UNDERDOG DIPLOMACY  In addition to its minerals monopoly, Beijing has built a legal foundation to capitalize on it — through an export control toolbox that mirrors the one Washington has used to cap exports of leading-edge technology to China. The EU lacks a comparable armory that would allow it to respond in kind. Whereas export controls are now a go-to option in Washington’s and Beijing’s trade negotiation strategies, to Brussels, protecting national security remains the sole legitimate justification to deploy such measures.  “The EU will need to find a way to live in this new reality,” said Antonia Hmaidi, senior analyst at think tank Merics, adding that the bloc may have to give up its belief in the rules-based trading system that characterized the post-World War Two era. “It could also mean that the EU chooses not to play that game, but then the EU needs a different game to play,” she said, adding that weaponizing EU market access could be a powerful alternative. Ahead of Thursday’s summit, calls are growing to ready the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), the only trade policy tool the EU can wield against economic coercion. Working mostly through deterrence, the bloc’s so-called trade bazooka seeks to prevent foreign powers from pressuring European countries — but only foresees action as a last resort. “It’s the usual sabre rattling from the usual subjects, but activating the ACI is not seriously under consideration at this stage,” said one EU diplomat, who was also granted anonymity. Asked whether the EU executive is looking at the ACI, the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill said: “Right now we’re focused on engagement, and we’re not going to go down the road of speculating about any other possibility.” That engagement is delivering scant results. In June, Beijing agreed to set up a “green channel” for European companies to speed the approval of export licenses. And yet, Šefčovič said, only half of the 2,000 priority applications submitted by European companies to the Chinese authorities had been “properly addressed.” CATCHING UP  Moving forward, the EU needs to dramatically ramp up its diversification efforts. At a meeting with industry leaders on Monday, Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné said the EU’s response must build on two pillars, according to his cabinet: a diplomatic solution and a more resilient supply chain. China accounts for 61 percent of rare earths extraction and 92 percent of refining, according to the International Energy Agency. | VCG/Gett Images That, however, won’t happen overnight. Especially since the EU executive unveiled its grand plan to diversify its supply of raw materials away from China two years ago, officials have been stressing the need to stockpile more of the metals and minerals, ramp up domestic mining and production and seal new partnerships. But concrete action is still lagging, with experts and industry alike lamenting the lack of funding being put on the table. James Watson, director general at metals lobby Eurometaux, welcomed the EU executive’s decision to award “strategic project” status to some 60 mines and refineries inside and outside the bloc, but added: “We still need dedicated funding for the sector, as well as addressing structural issues, such as higher energy costs and heavier administrative burdens, that put as at a competitive disadvantage compared with our global competitors.” Camille Gijs and Koen Verhelst contributed reporting.

Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich lost his latest legal challenge Wednesday against EU sanctions. The European Union sanctioned the billionaire former owner of Chelsea Football Club in 2022 after Russia launched its all-out war on Ukraine, alleging that close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin helped him build his enormous wealth. Abramovich asked the bloc’s highest court to lift the restrictions, including an asset freeze and a European travel ban, arguing — among other things — the measures were unfair and the EU erred when it said he had links to the Kremlin. He also asked for compensation for reputational damage. But the General Court, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissed Abramovich’s action Wednesday, calling the sanctions “necessary and appropriate.” The EU’s top court also noted the billionaire’s significant shareholder role in Evraz, a steel mining group that provides substantial revenue to the Russian government. Abramovich has launched legal fights in the EU and the United Kingdom to clear his name, with his lawyers arguing his celebrity status has made him a target, but with little success. Shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion, Abramovich sold Chelsea FC for the highest price ever paid for a football team. The British government has said it wants to seize the £2.5 billion proceeds from the sale of the English Premier League club and funnel them to Ukraine. Ukraine’s former President Viktor Yanukovych also lost his own decade-long court fight on Wednesday to lift sanctions imposed on him by the EU.

The world order is fracturing and the European Union must turn to outer space in its search for raw materials. In short, it needs to mine the Moon. So argues the European Commission in a new report on the key threats to Europe’s security and prosperity, published Tuesday. “[T]he global order has been shaken tremendously,” the EU executive’s sixth annual Strategic Foresight Report warned, adding non-EU countries may no longer be relied upon to supply materials vital in low-carbon energy technology. “In response, there may be a growing emphasis on … advanced mining technologies including space mining, starting with the Moon,” the report said. Metals such as lithium, copper, nickel and rare earths are essential for renewable energy and electric vehicles, and very few of them are mined within the EU. The Commission is worried countries with rich reserves of these metals could team up to manipulate supply, the same way the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) manipulates oil supply. This could drive up prices and “restrict access to essential materials, posing a serious challenge to the EU’s strategic autonomy and clean energy transition,” the Commission said. HAS BRUSSELS GONE MAD? Space mining has been promoted by many government agencies, including the U.S. government’s NASA and Japan’s JAXA. In the EU, Luxembourg has positioned itself as Europe’s space mining hub, with hopes of mining the Moon and asteroids using robots. These celestial bodies are often rich in useful metals such as rare earths, aluminum, titanium, and manganese, as well as precious metals like gold and platinum. In June this year, the Commission released its Vision for the Space Economy, in which it estimated so-called space resources could be worth up to €170 billion between 2018 and 2045. Still, industrial-scale space mining remains a distant dream, and practical solutions for mining and transporting mined metals back to Earth are in their infancy. The EU has also fallen behind on establishing critical raw material supply chains and refining capacity. | Christopher Neundrof/EPA WHY IS EUROPE WORRIED? The energy transition is sending demand for critical minerals (literally) skyrocketing. To meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement, for example, the world needs to mine as much copper over the next 25 years as has been mined in the whole of human history, according to some estimates. Copper is essential in anything that uses electricity. It’s a similar story for lithium, used in EV batteries. The European Commission expects EU lithium demand for batteries to be 12 times higher in 2030 than in 2020, and 21 times higher in 2050. Currently, the EU does not mine any lithium at all. The EU’s small, densely populated landmass, comparatively strong environmental protections, and active civil society make it a difficult jurisdiction in which to develop mines, even when resources are discovered. People don’t like having mines in their backyard, as mining giant Rio Tinto’s attempt to open a lithium mine in the EU’s neighbor, Serbia, has shown. The EU has also fallen behind on establishing critical raw material supply chains and refining capacity. Meanwhile, forward-thinking China has established a stranglehold on critical raw material supply chains, refining 40 percent of the world’s copper, 60 percent of its lithium, 70 percent of its cobalt, and nearly 100 percent of its graphite, according to a report last year by the Jacques Delors Centre. “The EU … imports close to 100 per cent of its rare earths from China,” the Delors report said. “This exposes it to supply disruptions and price volatility, amplifying vulnerabilities in critical sectors.”

BRUSSELS — The international world order is beyond repair and Europe should adapt to the law of the jungle — or else come up with new rules. That’s the bleak message the European Commission is set to give on Tuesday in a text detailing major challenges ahead. “We are witnessing the erosion of the international rules-based order,” several drafts of its annual Strategic Foresight Report, seen by POLITICO, say. Since taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump has consistently shown contempt for institutions like the United Nations by withdrawing funding or pulling out of key U.N. bodies like the UNHCR, its refugee agency, and UNESCO, which works in education and science. Trump’s global tariff threats have further undermined the authority of the World Trade Organization. The European Union’s executive will acknowledge that these institutions likely won’t recover from the breakdown of the global order. In fact, Europe should prepare for it not to come back. “A return to the previous status quo seems increasingly unlikely,” the draft warns. The EU could be particularly affected by this development. Key features of the bloc, such as its internal market, trade flows, international partnerships, and technical standards, all depend on a functioning multilateral system. “The instability and partial disfunction of the international order and the partial fracturing of global economies have a destabilising effect on the EU’s ability to act in the interest of its economy and the well-being of its people,” it adds. The final text of the report presented on Tuesday could still differ significantly from the drafts. EMBRACING CHANGE The Commission report aims to steer broader EU policies ranging from trade to technology, climate and other areas. It will call for Europe to be ready for the advent of artificial intelligence that matches human thinking; for regulation of technologies to dim the power of the sun; and to consider mining outer space and the deep sea for critical minerals. Instead of clinging to the old rules-based order, Europe should lead an international effort to reform it, the document will say. “The EU should actively and with a coherent approach shape the discussion about a new rule-based global order and a reform of multilateralism,” the draft reads, singling out the U.N. and the WTO, the Geneva-based trade club, as key institutions of focus. The bloc also shouldn’t shy away from forming “new alliances based on common interests,” it advises.