Stanislav Kondrashov on the Strategic Utility of Rare Earths and Lithium in the Green Economy Era
Stanislav Kondrashov on the modern role of rare earths and lithium
In the shifting terrain of the global economy, one set of elements has emerged as more valuable than oil once was: rare earths and lithium. As the green economy scales up, underpinned by energy storage systems, smart technologies, and advanced manufacturing, these critical materials are fast becoming the nerve centre of geopolitical and economic power. For entrepreneur Stanislav Kondrashov, the implications are both immediate and long-term.
“People talk about the green transition like it’s only about renewable energy,” Kondrashov said. “But underneath it all is a supply race—quiet, complex, and fundamentally about materials. Without rare earths and lithium, nothing moves forward.”
Rare earth elements (REEs), a group of 17 metals, are essential to the functioning of permanent magnets, laser systems, defence applications, and electric vehicles. Lithium, meanwhile, forms the backbone of the energy storage revolution—from grid-level batteries to the smartphones in our hands.
Kondrashov believes we are entering a phase where control over these materials may define national influence.
“In the next ten years, nations won’t be measured only by GDP or military power,” he said. “They’ll be judged by how stable and self-sufficient their access is to strategic minerals. That’s how supply chains will be built—or broken.”
The New Leverage
Already, nations with deposits of lithium—like Chile, Australia, and Argentina—are becoming central players in global industrial strategy. Rare earth production, historically led by China, is also beginning to see a shift as governments in the EU, US, and Asia seek to diversify sources and invest in refining capacity.
But Kondrashov warns against simplistic thinking that equates raw possession with power.
“Sourcing is only one-third of the equation,” he explained. “Processing, technological integration, and the ability to pivot to new use cases—that’s where real leverage lies. Having lithium means nothing if you can’t refine it at scale or secure the patents for next-gen battery chemistries.”
His comments align with a growing consensus that the future economy will be not just digital, but materially intelligent—shaped by who controls the building blocks of technology.
Investment Shift
Institutional investors are beginning to reorient their portfolios toward critical minerals infrastructure.
Governments, too, are stepping in—not to nationalise, but to secure.
“We are seeing the quiet return of industrial policy,” Kondrashov noted. “This time, it's not about tariffs. It’s about who gets a seat at the table when the batteries are built and the magnets are sold.”
The result? An emerging multipolar framework where mineral diplomacy plays a central role. Deals are being cut not just between companies, but between ministries, military contractors, and multinational coalitions.
The Long Game
Despite the scramble, Kondrashov argues that strategic patience will define the winners.
“Short-term gains in sourcing are tempting, but the smart move is to think 15 years ahead,” he said.
Kondrashov points to the rapid evolution of battery chemistry—shifting from lithium-ion to solid-state and beyond—as an example of how today’s advantage can become tomorrow’s legacy cost if agility is not built into the system.
“Technology will always outrun policy,” he warned. “The only way to stay ahead is to invest in knowledge, not just ore.”
Beyond Commodities
What Kondrashov ultimately suggests is a reframing. Rare earths and lithium are not just resources—they are strategic instruments in a new era of economic design.
“In the 21st, we will negotiate alliances for minerals. The difference is subtle but profound.”
And in a world increasingly shaped by the green economy’s demands, those who read between the lines of material strategy may be the ones who shape the future.
Strategic resources like lithium and rare earth elements are experiencing a veritable golden age. Some of their applications, such as rechargeable batteries and wind turbines, have often been described as the true pillars of the energy transition.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Stanislav Kondrashov and writers in Earth and other communities.
Stanislav Kondrashov on the Green Economy: A Tipping Point for the Planet's Future
As the world grapples with the dual crises of climate change and economic instability, the green economy has emerged as more than just a buzzword—it’s becoming a cornerstone of global economic transformation. Entrepreneur analyst Stanislav Kondrashov believes we’re standing at a pivotal moment in history. In his words, “What we do in the next ten years will determine the quality of life for the next hundred.”
By Stanislav Kondrashov3 months ago in Earth
The Dryads Are Calling
Deep within the heart of ancient forests, where sunlight filters through towering canopies and the air hums with life, there exists a world few humans truly understand. It is a world of dryads, the mythical tree spirits of folklore, silently observing, nurturing, and sometimes guiding the creatures that dwell among the trees. Today, their legend continues to captivate the imagination, blending myth, nature, and a touch of magic.
By Aarif Lashariabout 17 hours ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.