From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jake Smith

As the clock ticks down to January — the end of President Joe Biden’s sole term — the Biden-Harris administration is trying to figure out how to aid Ukraine against Russia with limited and dwindling options.

The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for more than two years, and though the Biden administration has devoted over $175 billion in economic and military aid to help Ukraine, it has done little to shift the tides in Kyiv’s favor. The Biden administration, unlikely to receive any more funding for aid from Congress, is looking at alternative choices including loosening weapons restrictions and allowing Ukraine to strike further inside of Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The new policy would only apply to European and other Western weapons, not U.S. systems, according to multiple reports. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted on Wednesday that such a move was on the table and strongly being considered.

Lifting the restrictions would represent a major shift in approach from the Biden administration, which has been wary of allowing Ukraine to use Western-provided weapons for deep strikes inside Russia up to this point.

But Ukraine is likely to want more from the Biden administration than being allowed to use European weapons for long-range strikes. Specifically, Ukraine wants to use American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russia, given the high quality and range of the system, though the administration may be more unlikely to grant that request.

Besides loosening weapons restrictions, the administration has few other options. Though Biden was able to sign off on a congressionally approved $60 billion aid package for Ukraine in April, Congress isn’t expected to grant any more funding for the war between now and January, limiting the amount of assistance the administration can provide.

The Russia-Ukraine war has largely stalled out, with neither side conceding substantial territory to the other, although Ukrainian forces have recently made a surprising incursion into southern Russia and captured hundreds of miles of territory.

“They see this as part of their strategy to defend themselves, to develop leverage,” the senior administration told the WSJ.

Behind closed doors, however, administration officials are worried that Ukraine is dedicating too many forces to the incursion and stretching thin its forces trying to hold the front line against Russia, according to the WSJ. Russian forces have also begun a counteroffensive against Ukrainians spearheading an incursion, risking further escalation in the war.

Biden’s top aides realize the odds that Ukraine can secure a military victory against Russia by January are near zero, according to the WSJ. The Biden administration is not pressuring Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, even though some lawmakers and national security experts believe that is the only way to end the war.

Instead, the administration is choosing to let Kyiv dictate war plans and “improve Ukraine’s strategic position to the greatest extent possible between now and the end of the term,” one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the matter, told the WSJ.

The Biden administration has been under scrutiny for its handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, with critics fearing that there is no strategy to end the war or push Ukraine toward a military victory, which itself seems unlikely. The U.S. has slowly become more involved in the war but it has done little to move the needle while Ukraine’s manpower continues to be exhausted.

The administration’s strategy “sounds an awful lot like a recipe for another endless war [because it is] unable to send enough weapons to make a decisive difference on the battlefield, and they don’t have a clear sense of what the endgame should be,” Rachel Rizzo, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the WSJ.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

China is planning to restrict exports of a key mineral needed to make weapons while a U.S. company that could be reducing America’s reliance on foreign suppliers is languishing in red tape, energy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Chinese government announced on August 15 that it will restrict exports of antimony, a critical mineral that dominates the production of weapons globally and is essential for producing equipment like munitions, night vision goggles and bullets that are essential to national security, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Perpetua Resources, an American mining company, has been navigating red tape for years to develop a mine in Valley County, Idaho,  that could decrease reliance on the Chinese supply of antimony, but the slow permitting process is getting in the way, energy experts told the DCNF.

It can take years to secure all the necessary approvals and permits to develop a mine like the one Perpetua Resources is trying to operate. One of the key permitting laws in place is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which also applies to federal land management actions and the construction of certain public infrastructure projects like highways.

“After six years of planning and early engagement, we began the [NEPA] permitting process in 2016. We are now eight years into NEPA,” a Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. The company is hoping to extract antimony from the largest known deposit in the U.S., and Perpetua Resources’ development could also produce millions of ounces of gold as well.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, argues that the Perpetua Resources mine poses real environmental considerations that should be addressed, but production in the U.S. is almost certainly cleaner than production that takes place in China. Moreover, depending on China for raw materials needed to produce key defense equipment poses a clear national security risk, Furchtgott-Roth said.

“The United States has the highest environmental standards in the world for its mines, as well as for some other things, too,” Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF. “It’s a huge national security risk. Given what we’ve seen with Russia cutting off supplies of natural gas to Europe, we know that countries can cut off important supplies to other countries.”

“If the administration wants to pursue policies that push electric vehicles, green energy and other mineral-intensive technologies, it should look to streamline the permitting process across the board rather than selectively pursuing reform for some favored types of development and not for others,” Furchtgott-Roth added.

Steve Coonen, a former Department of Defense (DOD) official who focused on technology exports to China, agreed that relying on China for raw materials needed to produce crucial technologies presents a clear national security risk.

“The United States has all the rare earth elements it needs, not too dissimilar from its energy requirements,” Coonen told the DCNF. “However, Democrats have enchained U.S. industry by prohibiting the extraction of these materials for misplaced and ill-informed ecological reasons at a significant risk to national security and the United States’ long-term economic health.”

China is responsible for just under 50% of the world’s antimony production, and it is also the source of 63% of the U.S.’ current antimony imports, according to CSIS. The U.S., meanwhile, did not mine any “marketable” antimony in 2023, according to CNBC.

China’s recently announced export restrictions for antimony will take effect on Sept. 15, according to CNBC. To many in the industry, China moving to curb antimony exports would have come as a surprise just a few months ago, so the country’s decision to take action comes across as “quite confrontational in that regard,” Lewis Black, CEO of Canadian mining company Almonty Industries, told the outlet.

In addition to antimony, China has also flexed its muscles by restricting exports of other critical minerals that it dominates globally, like germanium and gallium, since 2023.

“The United States has some of the highest permitting standards in the world, and that’s something to be proud of. But NEPA gets criticism for being inefficient, and much of that criticism is justified,” the Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. “When we are talking about minerals we need for America’s national and economic security — not to mention our clean energy future — we need an efficient regulatory process that still maintains robust protections for communities and the environment.”

The company is anticipating that the process — from initial deposit identification to the beginning of mineral extraction from the mine site — will take 18 years, the Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. However, the spokesperson added that NEPA has been beneficial for transparency with the public and allowing stakeholder communities to weigh in about the project.

Nevertheless, Perpetua Resources “absolutely supports a commonsense, bipartisan approach to permitting reform” because “good projects should not wither in red tape.”

The antimony curbs may be even more pressing given existing concerns about the strength of America’s defense-industrial base amid wars in the Middle East and Europe, as well as rising tensions with China over Taiwan. Many experts have cautioned that the U.S. is allowing itself to become too dependent on an adversarial China’s mineral supplies at a time when those minerals are playing a much larger role in the American economy, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda.

“In the mid-twentieth century, domestic mining accounted for 90% of the U.S.’s antimony consumption. Today, the U.S. no longer mines antimony; instead, it relies on China, its chief geopolitical rival, for over 60% of its antimony imports,” Quill Robinson, an associate fellow in CSIS’ Energy Security and Climate Change Program, told the DCNF. “Effective China de-risking requires reducing reliance up and down the value chain.”

Independent West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso teamed up to introduce a major permitting reform bill in July, designing the package to simplify the regulatory hurdles that major infrastructure and development projects must clear and expedite timelines without totally defanging regulators’ ability to ensure that environmental concerns and considerations are addressed. That bill has not yet come up for a vote in the Senate.

“There are legitimate environmental challenges that need to be mitigated for projects like this,” Arnab Datta, the Institute for Progress’ director of infrastructure policy, told the DCNF. However, government agencies are more strongly incentivized to avoid legal challenges of their reviews from third parties than they are to thoroughly review the more significant environmental concerns, meaning that regulators tend to chew up lots of time on those minor points and ultimately extend the timelines for permitting, Datta explained.

“The uncertainty from permitting and litigation compounds the challenge of reaching production in what’s often a volatile and uncertain market environment for these commodities,” Datta, who also works for Employ America as a managing director of policy implementation, continued. “These companies need a process with certainty and reasonable timelines and also support that helps mitigate the volatility that arises from China’s actions in the market.”

Featured Image: Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash