Power dynamics during the greater part of the previous century were rather predictable; whoever owned oil ruled the planet. Countries were fighting over oil, making alliances to acquire more of it, and even creating new territories in order to gain access to these valuable resources. In 2026, a similar, yet much more subtle situation can be observed; the only difference is that the resources at stake in the present scenario seem rather unfamiliar to most of us. 

These are critical minerals, and the fight to secure access to them is quickly turning into one of the key battles of the decade. The battle over these resources is playing out through various forms of international trade policy, outright embargoes on exports, massive government stockpiles, and agreements made in places such as Kyiv, Kinshasa, and Canberra. But as with most resource wars in history, those who live in closest proximity to the mines that produce them are rarely the biggest beneficiaries. 

What Counts As A Critical Mineral, And Why Now?

The term “critical minerals” applies to the particular category of minerals regarded as vital for contemporary economic activities, and also non-renewable. Lithium and cobalt are used for making batteries; rare earth elements such as neodymium and dysprosium are necessary for manufacturing powerful magnets; nickel and graphite for batteries; copper is used everywhere when it comes to electrical stuff; and finally, gallium, germanium, antimony, scandium, and yttrium for semiconductors and military equipment. 

The difference here lies in the demand. It has not been that there was no need for these resources; some of them were being mined for decades. There was a need, but now the scale and importance of the need have become different. With the transition towards electric cars and the construction of green energy facilities, along with AI data centers, it all became a problem all at once. In 2025, according to an industry analysis done by IEA and cited in 2026, investments in the extraction and processing of such resources made up a total of $128 billion compared to $80 billion in 2023, which marks a 62 percent increase. 

And then factor in the aspect of defense, which includes modern missiles that use sophisticated guidance mechanisms and fighter planes with specialized alloys, and you get a range of materials that exist at the crossroads of three things simultaneously: green technology, technological supremacy, and military readiness. That crossroad is exactly why critical minerals carry such geopolitical weight. 

What is missing from most media headlines is that China’s dominance in critical minerals is not due to the quantity of its mining. Rather, it is what comes next after mining.

As stated by CSIS in its analysis in March 2026, while China accounts for only 10% of the total global production of lithium, cobalt, and copper, it has an estimated 40 to 90% market share in their processing. Furthermore, a multi-institutional study conducted earlier in 2026 estimates that China has 90% share in rare earth processing, alongside its dominant market share in tungsten (80%) and antimony (60%). Simply put, even if the mineral was mined elsewhere in Australia, Chile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or wherever else, the chances are high that they would still go through Chinese refining. 

This choke point allows Beijing to leverage without having to rely on stockpiles, and over the last two years, China has applied it more and more often and effectively. Specifically, in December 2024, China halted the exportation of germanium, gallium, and antimony, three mineral resources extensively utilized in military-related manufacturing from the US. Later, on April 4, 2025, China imposed export restrictions on seven rare earth elements and........

© Paradigm Shift