How Mineral Dependency Fuels Global AI Geopolitics?

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not only remaking economies, societies, and war—it is transforming the shape of global geopolitics as well. Amidst popular debates on AI in terms of software innovation and algorithmic power, material underpinnings that make AI development possible—critical minerals—have become important in the process.

This mineral underpinning introduces an added layer of geopolitical uncertainty with strategic exposures developing around access to, control over, and processing of critical minerals. As AI becomes a defining pillar of economic and military power, the global scramble for minerals is evolving into a new area of strategic competition.

Minerals: The Hidden Backbone of AI

AI technologies, especially in hardware-intensive applications like deep learning, quantum computing, electric vehicle (EVs), and high-performance computing, require several critical minerals. These include Rare Earth Elements (REEs), lithium, cobalt, nickel, gallium, germanium, graphite, and tantalum. These materials are integral to the production of semiconductors, high-capacity batteries, sensors, and specialized magnets.

For instance, gallium and germanium are essential for high-frequency semiconductors used in 5G and AI chips. Rare Earth elements like neodymium and dysprosium are used in permanent magnets, which are crucial for cooling systems in data centres and electric motors in AI-integrated systems. Similarly, cobalt and lithium are indispensable for the batteries powering AI-guided drones, robots, and mobile systems.

Thus, the pursuit of AI supremacy is directly linked to securing access to these minerals. However, the supply chains of these critical elements are neither diversified nor secure. The geopolitical contestations have also increased to secure these critical minerals between nations. 

Geographic Concentration and Strategic Chokepoints

One of the most alarming aspects of mineral dependency in the AI ecosystem is the geographic concentration of supply and processing capabilities. A handful of countries dominate the production and refining of these critical materials:

• China processes nearly 85% of the world’s Rare Earth Elements and is a major exporter of gallium and germanium.
• The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) produces over 70% of the world’s cobalt, often under conditions marred by political instability and human rights concerns.
• Indonesia and the Philippines are leading producers of nickel.
• Australia, Chile, and Argentina hold the majority of lithium reserves.
• Recently, Greenland has taken the centre stage of geopolitics due to its mineral resources and geostrategic location.
• Last week, the US signed a mineral deal with Ukraine to have control over the rich mineral resources of Ukraine for geopolitical gains.

This concentration introduces strategic chokepoints in the global mineral supply chain. Any disruption—whether due to geopolitical conflict, domestic instability, or export restrictions—can significantly impact the availability of AI hardware, delaying or derailing critical research, production, and deployment.

Geopolitics and the Weaponization of Minerals

In recent years, there has been a noticeable trend of resource weaponization. Countries controlling key resources have begun to use them as tools of geopolitical leverage. China has restricted the export of gallium and germanium, which are vital minerals for advanced semiconductors, due to its geopolitical rivalry with the US.

Chinese firms, like others, have mounted efforts to develop expensive and geologically challenging mining projects on the resource-rich island. However, US has asked Greenland to remove Chinese firm from the mining of the rare earth mineral in the Island.

This action is a reflection of previous times when resource-endowed states have wielded geopolitical power through supply controls. In the context of AI, though, such controls would likely have more direct and destructive consequences due to high demand and lack of alternatives for most key minerals.

Adding to this environment is resource nationalism, where states seek to restrain it to gain maximum local value addition or demonstrate sovereignty over natural resources. For example, Indonesia prohibits exporting raw nickel to trigger domestic processing industries. While there could be sound economics behind this internally and internationally, such actions can contribute to scarcity and price movements.

Strategic Responses by Major Powers

In response to these vulnerabilities, several countries are adopting multi-pronged strategies to diversify, secure, and innovate within mineral supply chains.

1. Diversification of Supply: The United States, the European Union, Japan, and India are seeking alternative sources of minerals through partnerships with resource-rich but politically stable countries like Australia, Canada, and Brazil.
2. Strategic Alliances: The formation of the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP)—led by the US and involving key allies—is aimed at securing resilient and transparent supply chains for critical minerals.
3. Stockpiling and Reserves: Similar to strategic oil reserves, some countries are creating stockpiles of essential minerals to buffer against future supply shocks.
4. Recycling and Substitution: Technological innovations are being directed toward recycling rare minerals from e-waste and developing alternatives to materials like cobalt and lithium. 
5. Domestic Mining and Processing: There is also a renewed push to revive or expand mining and processing within national borders, albeit with environmental and regulatory challenges.

Implications for Global Security and Strategic Studies

The convergence of AI and mineral geopolitics signals a new dimension in national security. Just as oil shaped the geopolitics of the 20th century, critical minerals may define the power equations of the 21st century. Nations that control or can secure access to these resources will have a strategic advantage not just in economics but also in defence, surveillance, and information dominance.

Moreover, the AI-military-industrial complex will be as dependent on mineral supply chains as it is on algorithms and data. The growing integration of AI in autonomous weapons, surveillance systems, and cybersecurity infrastructure means that mineral supply disruptions could have direct national security implications. In strategic terms, this mineral dependency also alters the calculus of great power competition. Future wars won’t be wars over ideology or territory but over access to mines and processing plants. As nations work to break up hostile supply chains and maintain mineral sovereignty, the threat of resource conflict grows.

Conclusion

As AI remakes the world, the raw materials fueling it should not be an afterthought. Minerals are no longer commodities; they are strategic assets. The international AI competition is as much a matter of chips and code as it is about cobalt and gallium. Navigating this new terrain demands foresight, cooperation, and robust policy frameworks that balance technological aspiration with geopolitical realism.