90 Days of Oil, Zero Grams of Metal: The Raw-Materials Gap Behind the Military Buildup

by Michael Hollister
Exclusive published at GlobalBridge on September 18, 2026

5.319 words * about 28 minutes readingtime

Rheinmetall now produces more artillery shells than the United States: 1.1 million rounds a year, up from 70,000 in 2022, while US production remains at around 480,000 – a figure confirmed by CEO Armin Papperger in May 2026. Germany’s 2026 defense budget stands at €108.2 billion, its highest level since the end of the Cold War, including €14.8 billion for ammunition alone. As documented in “The War Before the War – Part 7” (available in German only) and its follow-up, Germany is building up its military at a pace that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

On August 27, 2026, the German government confirmed a figure that does not fit this picture. Responding to a minor interpellation submitted by the Alternative for Germany parliamentary group, it stated that Germany holds no government, semi-governmental, or government-mandated stockpiles of critical or strategic raw materials. None. Not a small amount, not an insufficient amount – none. The state preparing for a possible major conflict does not hold a single gram in reserve of the very materials without which no fuse, radar module, precision-guidance system, or armor-piercing round can be manufactured.

The visible story of recent months is record rearmament. The invisible story is that every fuse, every drone motor, every radar module, and every armor-piercing round passes through Chinese refineries – and that the state ordering millions of them is not stockpiling the necessary metals. Between the headline and its material foundation lies a gap that no one announces.

Oil is different. The German Petroleum Stockpiling Association is legally required to hold stocks equivalent to 90 days of net imports – currently around 15 million metric tons of crude oil and 9.5 million metric tons of finished products, enough to absorb a complete import halt for three months. Germany stockpiles the strategic materials of the last century. For the metals of the present one – the materials underlying the energy, digital, and defense transformations – it has created no buffer. Ninety days of oil, zero grams of metal.

The Question Behind the Headline

The obvious question is whether Germany has enough rare earths. It is the wrong question. No modern industrial nation is self-sufficient in raw materials, and none seriously aspires to be. Autarky would be neither achievable nor economically sensible. Anyone who makes it the standard is measuring against an ideal that no country meets.

The meaningful standard is different: strategic resilience. It is measured not by whether a dependency exists, but by how many independent alternatives a country possesses, how quickly it can activate them, and how long it can bridge a disruption from its own stockpiles. A dependency is manageable if a six-month interruption can be covered from reserves and another supplier activated within that period. It becomes strategically dangerous when the stockpile is zero and building alternative processing capacity takes years rather than months.

The distinction between interdependence and one-sided dependency is also crucial. If country A supplies one product and receives another in return, both sides depend on each other; severing the relationship harms both, and that reciprocity creates a natural brake on economic escalation. The danger arises only when four conditions coincide: high import dependence, few alternative suppliers, little or no stockpiling, and a supplier that can absorb a disruption far more easily than the buyer. No industrial nation is self-sufficient, and dependency alone is not an indictment. The question is whether that dependency is distributed symmetrically – or whether one side holds the leverage.

The question posed by this article, therefore, is not whether Germany has enough metal. It is this: How resilient is a rearmament strategy whose material foundation lies outside Europe – with precisely the rival against whom part of that rearmament is directed?

Germany’s Zero – and What It Actually Means

The German government reported its zero not only to the Bundestag, but also to the European Commission as part of reporting under the Critical Raw Materials Act. The Economics Ministry participates in the EU stockpiling initiative and, of all things, leads its “Demand and Production” working group – meaning that Germany is helping to design European stockpiling while maintaining no national reserve of its own. The current status of those consultations, the government states, is not public.

This finding requires precision, or it becomes misleading. Germany is not without reserves. Oil is covered by the Petroleum Stockpiling Association’s 90-day requirement, which is enshrined in the Petroleum Stockpiling Act. Gas supplies are protected by storage requirements and government-funded purchases. What is missing is a stockpile of critical mineral raw materials – the metals. The Federation of German Industries summarizes the gap succinctly: Unlike oil and gas, there are no national reserves of critical mineral raw materials. That distinction is central to the story. Germany prepared for the supply shock of the twentieth century, not the one of the twenty-first.

The Raw Materials Fund, which the government likes to cite as its answer, does not change that. It was established in October 2024, endowed with €1 billion, and transferred to the state-owned development bank KfW; through equity investments, it supports extraction, processing, and recycling projects. It expressly does not provide direct support for stockpiling. By spring 2026, it had funded three projects. All three concern lithium and graphite: the lithium-hydroxide converter in Guben; Vulcan Energy’s geothermal lithium project in the Upper Rhine Valley – its first operational investment, receiving €150 million within total financing of around €2.2 billion and requiring approximately four years to build; and a graphite-substitution project. Among Germany’s recognized strategic projects, there is not a single one for gallium, germanium, tungsten, or the magnet rare earths used in defense production. These distinctions – the Raw Materials Fund, the Critical Raw Materials Act targets, and the depth of Germany’s processing capabilities – are documented in the federal government’s own response to Parliament.

What the government offers instead remains vague. It says it is conducting an open-ended review of ways to support corporate stockpiling. Rather than creating its own reserve, the state is therefore considering incentives for private stockpiling – at a time when demand is already rising. Economics Minister Katherina Reiche traveled to Beijing in spring 2026 to explore access to critical minerals on which German companies could rely. Shortly beforehand, the European Court of Auditors had criticized the continuing lack of progress in expanding domestic capacity. Between recognition of the problem and a reliable answer lies a gap the government itself has not closed, as contemporary reporting on Germany’s gallium and germanium shortage and the stalled expansion of European capacity also made clear.

The decisive policy choice was made one level higher and went largely unnoticed. On November 5, 2025, Germany’s National Security Council addressed the supply of raw materials to German industry and commissioned a Raw Materials Action Plan. The federal government prepared it – and then wrote the decisive sentence: Owing to its particular relevance to security policy, publication of the action plan was not intended. The plan meant to govern the material security of the military buildup is classified. The public is told that it exists, but not what it contains.

The Lesson From Washington: Money Cannot Build a Refinery Overnight

Anyone who believes this gap can be closed through a budget resolution should look to Washington. The American materials paradox, documented in detail in an earlier analysis, provides the comparative model – and it is a warning, not a reassurance.

The United States has everything Germany lacks: a National Defense Stockpile; domestic deposits and a mining tradition; Canada as an immediate resource partner; Australia as an ally; and militarily secured global sea-lanes. Since 2020, the Pentagon has invested billions through the Defense Production Act in domestic supply chains. In July 2025, it acquired a stake in rare-earth producer MP Materials and guaranteed a minimum price of $110 per kilogram for neodymium-praseodymium oxide to protect domestic production from Chinese price dumping. The MP Materials agreement was intended to break China’s grip on the rare-earth supply chain. Yet the US defense industry remains dependent on China for crucial processing steps.

The reason is a lesson that weighs even more heavily for Germany: The problem lies not in extraction, but in processing. MP Materials produced around 1,300 metric tons of neodymium-praseodymium oxide in 2024. China manufactured an estimated 300,000 metric tons of finished magnets that same year – a ratio of less than one percent. A single number illustrates how deeply the dependency reaches into individual weapons systems: An F-35 fighter contains around 920 pounds (418 kilograms) of rare earths; a Virginia-class submarine contains more than ten times that amount. According to industry estimates, building a complete chain from ore through separation, refining, and metallization to the finished magnet takes seven to fifteen years and demands enormous capital investment. Money can accelerate the process only so much. A refinery does not materialize through a cabinet decision.

There is also a structural problem that applies equally to Europe: The defense sector is too small to move markets. The Pentagon accounts for only around five percent of global demand for critical minerals; the real vulnerability lies in the rest of the economy, where civilian and military demand share the same bottleneck. In 2025, the Government Accountability Office estimated that closing the gaps in the National Defense Stockpile alone would require $18.5 billion – only a fraction of which was approved. Even the state that recognized this dependency earliest and has fought it most aggressively is not moving fast enough.

Germany is starting from a far worse position than the United States. It has no comparable stockpile, no land border with a resource partner like Canada, no mining industry of similar scale – and, as now confirmed, no strategic metal reserves. If even a superpower with a National Defense Stockpile cannot replace the China-dominated processing chain in the short term, the idea that Europe can do so by the end of the decade is hope, not planning.

The Leverage: Extraction Is Not Refining

China’s position in raw-material markets is regularly misunderstood because the debate stops at mining. Concentration is already high at that stage: In 2024, China accounted for around 60 percent of magnet rare-earth extraction. But the stage that follows is decisive. According to the International Energy Agency, China controls 91 percent of global rare-earth refining capacity and 94 percent of permanent-magnet manufacturing. Across all stages, China is the leading refiner of 19 out of 20 important strategic minerals, with an average market share of 70 percent. In the separation of the heavy rare earths dysprosium and terbium – which make heat-resistant, high-performance magnets possible – Beijing holds an effective monopoly.

In 2025, this structural dominance became an actively deployed instrument. On April 4, 2025, China imposed export controls on seven heavy rare earths and related compounds and magnets. The effect was immediate: Magnet exports fell by around three quarters, automakers in Europe and the United States had to slow or temporarily halt production lines, and prices outside China at times rose to six times the Chinese level. In October 2025, a second, more extensive wave followed, covering five additional elements as well as processing and magnet-manufacturing equipment – including foreign-made products that use Chinese materials or processes. The IEA described this as the moment supply-concentration risks became reality. This long-arm mechanism reaches far beyond China’s borders: It also covers magnets manufactured by a European producer from Chinese feedstock. Even after trade volumes recovered from the first wave, a marked price premium for magnets outside China remained – evidence that security concerns have permanently increased procurement costs. The second wave is suspended until November 2026, giving Europe time but not eliminating its vulnerability.

Rare earths are not an isolated case, but the starkest example of a broader pattern. China controls around 60 percent of the processing of antimony, a material used in armor-piercing ammunition and infrared sensors; Beijing imposed export controls on it in 2024 as well. The interdependence reaches deep into the wider European economy: The European Central Bank estimates that more than four fifths of large European companies are no more than three supply-chain steps removed from a Chinese rare-earth producer. Europe obtains 98 percent of its rare-earth magnets from Chinese production. Whoever controls this processing stage occupies a bottleneck through which nearly all of a continent’s advanced technology must pass.

In fairness, China’s interpretation must also be included. Beijing presents these measures as a response to US tariff and semiconductor policies and as a licensing requirement rather than an export ban. Both points are true. Yet neither changes the fundamental strategic fact: Whoever controls 91 percent of refining and 94 percent of magnet manufacturing determines the availability and price of a material the other side cannot do without. This weapon – control over processing rather than deposits – was described in “The Countermove – China’s Quiet Answer, Without Firing a Shot – Part 11.” What appeared there as Chinese leverage is seen here from the opposite direction: as European vulnerability to the same leverage.

Four Supply Chains, Four Findings

Abstract percentages obscure exactly where the dependency lies. Four materials indispensable to German defense and advanced technology make it tangible. The same chain applies to each: requirement, import dependency, principal supplier, concentration of processing, German government stockpile, and time required to establish an alternative. The possibility that these chains might break is not a modeling exercise. In spring 2025, European automakers had to slow production lines after China’s magnet export controls because the magnets were missing. What affected civilian production then would affect defense production in exactly the same way during a crisis.

Rare earths and permanent magnets. According to Germany’s Federal Statistical Office, Germany imported around 5,200 metric tons of rare earths in 2024; in 2025, that volume rose to 5,500 metric tons. In 2024, 65.5 percent came directly from China. The word “directly” is the catch: Additional imports pass through European intermediaries such as Austria, whose goods also originate predominantly in China. The actual dependency is therefore greater than any direct-import statistic indicates. At the EU level, 98 percent of demand for rare-earth magnets is supplied by Chinese manufacturing. These magnets are found in radar systems, guided weapons, drone motors, and electric actuators. German government stockpile: zero.

Gallium. According to the German Mineral Resources Agency, Germany imported between 40 and 60 metric tons of gallium annually from 2020 through 2022, with 50 to 60 percent coming from China. China dominates global refining of the metal with a share exceeding 90 percent. Gallium is used in radar semiconductors, power electronics, and GPS systems. China imposed export controls as early as July 2023. A cautionary example lies in the background: Until 2016, the Ingal facility in Stade, Lower Saxony, was Europe’s only gallium producer. Chinese suppliers flooded the global market with dumped prices and drove their competitor into insolvency – after which prices rose again. The figures for Germany’s gallium imports and direct dependence on China underscore the exposure. German government stockpile: zero.

Germanium. According to data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, China accounts for around 83 percent of global germanium production, while Europe’s import dependency stands at 42 percent. Germanium is recovered during the smelting of zinc and copper ores and is used in night-vision equipment, infrared optics, satellite solar cells, and fiber-optic cable. China’s export controls took effect here as well in July 2023. According to Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, one processor in Saxony held enough reserves for approximately six months – a corporate inventory, not a government stockpile. German government stockpile: zero.

Tungsten. According to the US Geological Survey, China mines around 79 percent of the world’s tungsten; the International Institute for Strategic Studies puts its share of production at 86 percent and Europe’s import dependency at 80 percent. Tungsten has the highest melting point of any metal and is the preferred material for armor-piercing ammunition – for kinetic penetrators of all calibers, composite armor, and missile components. In ammunition, it cannot be recycled: Every explosion consumes it irretrievably. Beijing imposed export controls in February 2025; Chinese export volume fell by more than 40 percent, and the price has since multiplied. Non-Chinese producer Almonty estimates that European inventories would be exhausted within three to six months if Chinese deliveries ceased completely. German government stockpile: zero.

The chain can be placed in a table, and the table tells the story on its own.

Four materials, four applications at the heart of national defense, one principal supplier, one government stockpile. The last column repeats itself because reality repeats itself.

Demand Is Exploding – and Competing With Itself

A stockpile of zero would be less alarming if demand remained constant. It is doing the opposite. In its Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025, the International Energy Agency projects extremely rapid growth in demand for precisely these materials – and German demand is converging on the same resources from several directions at once.

First comes the rearmament itself. The full extent of what Germany and Europe have built militarily in recent years is documented in “The War Before the War” and its follow-up. Ammunition production increased fifteenfold; in 2025, Europe’s largest ammunition plant opened in Unterlüß following an investment of €500 million. A second layer of military capacity is growing alongside it: Munich startup Helsing raised €600 million in June 2025; in February 2026, the Bundeswehr awarded Helsing and Stark Defence a €536 million contract for attack drones. European defense and security startups raised around $8.7 billion in 2025, up from $4.6 billion in 2023 – a doubling in two years. Large civilian plants are also being opened to defense production: Volkswagen is holding talks with the Israeli company Rafael concerning its Osnabrück plant, while Leopard tank manufacturer KNDS is searching for spare industrial capacity in the automotive sector. Every one of these drones, radar systems, and shells consumes the same four metals. Second comes the energy transition: Wind turbines and electric motors require the same rare-earth magnets. Third comes expansion of the power grid, which binds up large quantities of copper and other metals. Fourth come artificial-intelligence data centers, whose semiconductors require gallium and germanium.

Four waves of demand, one basket of raw materials. They are competing not only with China for access, but also with one another for the same scarce volumes. Artificial-intelligence data centers in particular are driving demand for gallium and germanium, while the same semiconductor materials are used in radar and reconnaissance systems – civilian and military demand are reaching for the same shelf. And the curve is not rising linearly; it is accelerating. Therein lies a trap for every catch-up strategy: Anyone who begins building a processing plant today and needs ten years to complete it will ultimately cover today’s demand – not the much higher demand that will exist by then.

The effects of a supply halt are no longer theoretical. A survey by the German Economic Institute found that 88 percent of companies sourcing critical raw materials expect higher procurement costs if supplies from China are disrupted, while 61 percent would have to reduce or stop production.

The term “war economy” appears in no official statement. The industrial reality it describes is emerging nonetheless – only without the material foundation that such a conversion has historically required. A country can erect a factory building, hire personnel, and place orders worth billions. Whether the metal arrives to fill it is decided by someone else.

Matching the Timelines

This is where the lines converge – and where a dependency becomes a strategic problem. A fifth variable now joins it: time.

The readiness horizon has been stated. During questions to the federal government on June 5, 2024, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius put it this way: “We must be kriegstüchtig – ready for war – by 2029.” Bundeswehr Chief of Defense Carsten Breuer explained that the year 2029 was based on rigorous analysis and added the crucial qualification: This did not mean that Russia would attack then, but that it would be capable of doing so. The distinction matters and is deliberately preserved here: The issue is capability, not an imputed intention. The defense budget is expected to rise to around €153 billion and 3.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2029. Readiness is scheduled for that year.

Building alternative supply chains is scheduled for a different year. The International Energy Agency calculates that by 2035, projects outside China will cover only around one quarter of refining demand and less than one fifth of magnet demand – while overall demand rises by roughly one third. According to its analysis, meaningful diversification would require a fourfold increase in refining capacity and a sixfold increase in magnet manufacturing outside China. The agency identifies metallization, alloy production, specialized equipment, and trained personnel as the real vulnerabilities – capabilities that cannot simply be bought but must be developed over years. The forecast for 2035 still leaves the world heavily dependent on Chinese refining and magnet capacity. The new magnet plant in Estonia, for example, is designed to produce around 2,000 metric tons annually, a fraction of European demand.

Germany’s flagship Vulcan Energy project alone requires around four years of construction. Even the accelerated permitting deadlines introduced by the Critical Raw Materials Act are 15 months for processing projects and 27 months for extraction projects – before the first shovel enters the ground. Capital does not solve the fundamental problem: Money cannot shorten regulatory processes or manufacture local consent, and no budget resolution changes the ore grade of a mine.

The contradiction therefore stands exposed. Readiness is planned for 2029. The replacement supply chain will not be viable until the middle of the following decade at the earliest. The strategic stockpile that would have to bridge the gap is zero. Germany can build Rheinmetall a new plant and set a 2029 deadline for the Bundeswehr. The upstream, China-dominated processing capacity does not care about that deadline – it can be replaced, if at all, only around 2033 or 2035. Readiness in 2029, replacement supply chain around 2035, buffer zero: The three figures stand side by side, and they do not come from the same plan.

Brussels’s Answer – and the Open Question

The European level has recognized the gap and responded. In October 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the RESourceEU Action Plan; it was adopted in December 2025. It provides for joint procurement and stockpiling of rare earths, supports European extraction and processing projects, and seeks to broaden the supplier base. In November 2025, Commission Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné announced a European center for critical raw materials to coordinate purchases and establish stockpiles. The stated objective is to reduce dependency by up to 50 percent by 2029, explicitly including defense value chains. The European Parliament’s research service outlined RESourceEU, the proposed center, and the first projects. The Critical Raw Materials Act complements the plan with 2030 benchmarks: 10 percent extraction, 40 percent processing, and 25 percent recycling within the EU, with no more than 65 percent coming from any single third country.

This can be taken for what it is intended to be: a serious, coordinated effort to correct a structural weakness. It is also fair to acknowledge that diversification is the right approach where autarky remains impossible. Two obstacles, however, stand in its way. First, a target is not capacity. “Up to 50 percent less dependency by 2029” is a declaration of intent, not a refinery. In February 2026, the European Court of Auditors criticized the continuing delays in expanding domestic mines, developing recycling capacity, and accelerating permits. Brussels itself acknowledges the urgency. Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said that the EU depends on Chinese supplies for more than 90 percent of many rare earths; the second wave of controls imposed in October 2025 is merely suspended until November 2026 – a reprieve, not a solution. Contemporary analysis of Europe’s critical-raw-material predicament and the limits of RESourceEU reaches the same central problem: announced measures do not yet constitute operating capacity.

Second, the response shifts resilience from the national to the European level and repeats a pattern identified in an earlier analysis of energy and trade policy. The EU is straining its relations with Russia, the United States, the Gulf states, and China simultaneously – precisely its most important energy, raw-material, and trading partners. Just as it shifted dependencies outward rather than eliminating them, it is now delegating national raw-material preparedness to Brussels. The same movement can be seen in the “European” nuclear umbrella, which still runs through Washington: The sovereignty being demanded is being transferred to a level that cannot produce it alone. This argument is developed in “Having Broken With Russia, Dependent on America, at Odds With China” (available in German only).

Here the analysis reaches a wall that no researcher can penetrate because it was deliberately erected. Who will own the future European stockpiles? Who will finance them, who will store them, and who will decide in a crisis how much each member state receives? Germany’s Raw Materials Action Plan, which should answer precisely these questions for Germany, is classified. According to the federal government, the status of the European stockpiling discussions is not public. The level at which allocation during a crisis will be decided is shielded from observation. This is not an accusation – it is a finding. The public knows nothing about the decisive distribution question at the heart of preparations for war.

Finding

Placed side by side, the findings produce a sober picture that requires no exaggeration. Germany and Europe are rearming at historic speed. The materials on which that rearmament depends – the magnets, semiconductors, optics, and penetrators – are tied to a processing chain largely located in a country that used its control over that chain as an instrument twice in 2025. The United States demonstrates that money alone cannot dissolve this dependency and that it cannot be eliminated within a few years. Germany starts from a worse position than the United States and holds not a single gram of the affected metals in government reserve. Military readiness is scheduled for 2029; the replacement supply chain for the second half of the following decade. And the level that will decide stockpiling and allocation during a crisis is hidden from public view.

This is what we need. This is what we depend on. This is the country from which we obtain it. This is how our relationship with that country is developing. These are the alternatives we possess, this is how long they will take to build, and this is the size of our physical buffer – zero. The columns stand side by side; readers can draw their own conclusions.

This closes the circle back to the original question. Dependency itself is not the problem, but its asymmetry: multiple waves of demand, few alternatives, no buffer, and a supplier able to absorb a disruption far more easily than the buyer. That is precisely the constellation that turns ordinary interdependence into leverage.

No single one of these findings proves that the military buildup must fail. Capability is the finding; intention and outcome remain open questions. What can be said, however, is this: The infrastructure for warfighting capability that Europe is constructing with such determination rests on a material foundation that does not yet exist – and whose construction will take longer than the deadline Europe has set for itself. Anyone who wants to rearm must be able to supply the effort. And anyone who stockpiles nothing can deliver only for as long as someone else permits it. Do not listen to what they say – watch what they do: The orders have been signed; the reserve is empty.

Exclusive published at GlobalBridge on September 18, 2026

No advertisers, no sponsors, no political patrons – this publication is funded by its readers. Support independent geopolitical analysis from $5 per month and unlock all member-only content.

You are also welcome to support my work with a one-time donation.

About the Author

Michael Hollister
is a geopolitical analyst and investigative journalist. He served six years in the German military, including peacekeeping deployments in the Balkans (SFOR, KFOR), followed by 14 years in IT security management. His analysis draws on primary sources to examine European militarization, Western intervention policy, and shifting power dynamics across Asia. A particular focus of his work lies in Southeast Asia, where he investigates strategic dependencies, spheres of influence, and security architectures. Hollister combines operational insider perspective with uncompromising systemic critique – beyond opinion journalism. His work appears on his bilingual website (German/English) www.michael-hollister.com and in investigative outlets across the German-speaking world and the Anglosphere.

Geopolitics does not end with the headline – receive the wider context, interests and shifts in power behind the news every week.

Sources

Primary Sources – Government and Public Authorities

1. German Bundestag, “Keine staatlichen Vorräte kritischer Rohstoffe”, hib 670/2026 (Federal Government response 21/7684), August 27, 2026.
2. German Bundestag, Minor interpellation by the Alternative for Germany parliamentary group, Bundestag printed paper 21/7488, August 6, 2026.
3. German Bundestag, Federal Government response, Bundestag printed paper 21/5977 (National Security Council Action Plan, Raw Materials Fund, CRMA targets, depth of processing), May 15, 2026.
4. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, “Oil Crisis Preparedness and Management” (Petroleum Stockpiling Association, 90-day requirement).
5. German Petroleum Stockpiling Association, statutory stockpiling mandate.
6. Federal Government/German Bundestag, Questions to the federal government with Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, “kriegstüchtig by 2029,” June 5, 2024.
7. Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), press release: 65.5 percent of rare-earth imports came from China in 2024, April 23, 2025.
8. Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), press release: rare-earth imports in 2025, April 14, 2026.

Institutions and Specialist Analyses

9. International Energy Agency, “Rare Earth Elements,” Executive Summary (91 percent refining, 94 percent magnets).
10. International Energy Agency, “With new export controls on critical minerals, supply concentration risks become reality” (19 of 20 minerals, sixfold prices).
11. IEA (via Aerospace & Defence), fourfold refining and sixfold magnet-manufacturing increases needed; 25 percent and less than 20 percent, respectively, by 2035.
12. European Parliament Research Service, “China’s rare-earth export restrictions” (RESourceEU, Séjourné, first projects).
13. Jacques Delors Centre, “The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Predicament: RESourceEU to the Rescue?”, December 2025.
14. World Economic Forum, “From Chips to Turbines: How Europe Depends on Rare Earths” (98 percent of magnets, ECB estimate), October 2025.
15. Mining Technology, “Rare Earth Power: Can Europe Ever Escape Its Dependency on China?” (RESourceEU target of 50 percent by 2029, defense value chains), February 2026.
16. Neue Zürcher Zeitung/International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Kritische Rohstoffe: Mit ihrer bisherigen Strategie bleibt die EU vom chinesischen Wohlwollen abhängig” (tungsten 86/80, germanium 83/42, antimony 52/47 percent), June 2026.
17. Institute for Rare Earths and Metals/German Mineral Resources Agency, “Ausfuhrkontrollen auf Gallium und Germanium: China will verhandeln” (German gallium imports of 40-60 metric tons, 50-60 percent from China).

Specialist Journalism and Additional Evidence

18. aktien.news, “Wolfram: Warum der Rohstoff zum strategischen Engpassfaktor wird” (USGS 79 percent, 67,000 metric tons), April 7, 2026.
19. Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, “Wolfram – ein strategisch wichtiger Rohstoff” (79 percent of APT, export volume down 40 percent after February 2025).
20. hartpunkt.de, “Chinas Dominanz bei Wolfram wird für die Rüstungsindustrie zur Herausforderung” (armor-piercing ammunition, Almonty estimate of three to six months), November 2025.
21. German Economic Institute, “Kritische Rohstoffe: Der Weg aus der Abhängigkeit” (88 and 61 percent of companies).
22. t-online, “Gallium und Germanium werden knapp in Deutschland” (European Court of Auditors, Raw Materials Fund, value of imports from China), May 27, 2026.
23. CNBC, “Europe Has Rare Earths but, for Now, It’s at China’s Mercy” (von der Leyen; Dombrovskis on dependency exceeding 90 percent), November 2025.
24. Euronews, “2029: Könnte Russland wirklich die NATO angreifen?” (Chief of Defense Breuer, €153 billion budget).
25. Global Finance, “Breaking China’s Grip on Rare-Earth Elements” (MP Materials, $110 price floor, IEA 2030 forecast), January 2026.

Internal Analyses (Michael Hollister)

26. The US Materials Paradox (February 8, 2026).
27. The Countermove – China’s Quiet Answer, Without Firing a Shot – Part 11 (August 21, 2026).
28. Having Broken With Russia, Dependent on America, at Odds With China (July 19, 2026; available in German only).
29. The War Before the War – Part 7 (May 3, 2026; available in German only).

© Michael Hollister – All rights reserved. Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text requires express written permission from the author. For licensing inquiries, please contact the author via www.michael-hollister.com.