Energy Transition, Geopolitics and Supply Chains are Increasingly Shaped by Political Narratives
Berlin, GER – Lithium, cobalt and rare earths are rapidly becoming the strategic resources of the 21st century. But according to Dr. Vlado Vivoda, the global competition over critical minerals is no longer decided primarily by geology. It is increasingly shaped by infrastructure, industrial systems and the political narratives surrounding them.
This dynamic was discussed during a recent expert webinar hosted by the German development agency GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). During the session, Dr. Vlado Vivoda, an expert in mineral governance and energy security, presented his research on the geopolitics of critical minerals.
The Rise of Narrative Competition
According to Dr. Vlado Vivoda, the global debate around critical minerals has entered a phase of what he calls “narrative warfare.” Governments, companies and advocacy groups frame minerals in different ways. Some present them primarily as key inputs for the energy transition. Others emphasize national security, supply chain resilience or geopolitical rivalry.
Because definitions vary widely, the debate itself becomes fragmented. Today, more than thirty national lists of “critical minerals” exist worldwide, each reflecting political priorities rather than purely geological realities.
These narratives influence investment decisions, industrial strategies and international partnerships.
From Free Markets to Industrial Strategy
The growing importance of minerals for electrification, digitalization and artificial intelligence has triggered a fundamental shift in economic policy.
In the past, raw materials were largely treated as commodities governed by global markets. Today, governments increasingly intervene through subsidies, strategic partnerships and industrial policy programs designed to secure supply chains.
Several systemic shocks have accelerated this shift. The pandemic disrupted global logistics. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshaped energy markets. At the same time, demand for minerals linked to batteries, renewable energy and digital infrastructure has surged.
Within only a few years, more than thirty countries have adopted national strategies for critical minerals.
Infrastructure Over Geology
One of the central arguments of Dr. Vlado Vivoda challenges a common assumption: possessing mineral deposits does not automatically translate into geopolitical influence.
Countries rich in raw materials often control only the earliest stage of the value chain. Processing capacity, industrial ecosystems and access to affordable energy determine who ultimately captures the economic value.
“Geology alone does not determine power. Infrastructure and industrial systems do.”
China illustrates this shift clearly. While many countries possess mineral resources, China dominates large parts of the refining and processing capacity required to transform raw materials into industrial components.
Energy as a Structural Constraint
Energy costs represent another decisive factor. Processing critical minerals requires large amounts of stable and affordable electricity. Regions with high industrial energy prices face significant disadvantages when attempting to build refining and processing facilities.
This challenge has become particularly visible in Europe, where rising electricity prices complicate efforts to expand domestic mineral processing.
A Fragmented Policy Landscape
Experts note that the global debate around critical minerals is increasingly shaped by competing political objectives.
Some governments frame minerals primarily through the lens of national security. Others emphasize climate policy, development cooperation or industrial competitiveness.
Balancing these priorities has become one of the central challenges for policymakers.
For Dr. Vlado Vivoda, the lesson is clear: the future of critical minerals will be determined not only by geology, but by the ability of countries to build stable industrial systems around them.
