By Park Soo-nam, CEONEWS
The global economic order has entered a new phase. The established rules that guided decades of globalization are disintegrating, giving way to an era of uncertainty where new rules have yet to be written. This is not a mere cyclical downturn or a temporary conflict, but a structural and fundamental transformation.
According to the World Economic Forum's (WEF) 2025 Global Risks Report, a pessimistic outlook is pervasive. 52% of Chief Risk Officers (CROs) anticipate an "unstable" short-term future, while 31% predict even greater turmoil, and 5% foresee risks of a global catastrophe. This sentiment, supporting the assessment that we are in the most fractured period since the Cold War, is pressuring the world alongside slowing economic growth. The World Bank has significantly downgraded its 2025 global economic growth forecast to 2.3%, citing rising trade barriers and deepening policy uncertainty as primary causes.
From Tariffs to Chokepoints
This new environment is fundamentally different from the trade wars of the past. While tariffs remain a valid policy tool, the core of national strategy has evolved toward more sophisticated and lethal methods. With 97% of top economists identifying trade policy as the single greatest source of global uncertainty, tensions are at an all-time high.
However, the competitive paradigm has shifted from a broad fight for market share to "technological containment"—a strategy focused on securing control over specific technologies. This weaponizes the interdependence of nations, with the key objective being the domination of a global supply chain's most vulnerable link: the "chokepoint." A chokepoint refers to a critical technology, component, or resource essential for the functioning of a specific industry or military capability. The nation that controls it can stifle its competitors' progress and maximize its international influence.
The "Small-Yard, High-Fence" Strategy
At the heart of this tech blockade is America's new geo-economic doctrine. As U.S. national security officials have explicitly stated, the goal is no longer to maintain a "relative" advantage or a "certain gap" over rivals. The objective has shifted to fundamentally arresting a competitor's technological progress and imposing a decisive technological blockade.
This is encapsulated in the "small-yard, high-fence" strategy. Instead of broad economic pressure, this strategy selectively identifies a "small yard" of technologies critical to national security and erects an insurmountable "high fence" around them. Its emergence signals that the global economy has moved beyond an era of simple competition into an era of siege warfare over specific technologies. It is akin to not just running faster, but breaking a competitor's leg to end the race altogether.
While this strategy is openly aimed at China, its logic presents a serious dilemma for allies like South Korea. In the advanced technology sectors designated as the "small yard," South Korea is both a U.S. security ally and a fierce economic competitor. As the U.S. pursues absolute control over certain technologies, the "high fence" serves a dual purpose: it blocks China while simultaneously binding allies into a state of technological subordination. This is a hidden threat, often overlooked by Korean media in the shadow of the U.S.-China hegemony narrative, but one that could prove decisive for the future of the Korean economy.
The 21st Century Chokepoint: The Battery Value Chain
The primary battleground for America's new geo-economic doctrine is the next-generation battery industry. As the heart of electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage systems (ESS), batteries are the key technology that will determine the victor of future industries. The U.S. is executing a sophisticated strategy to dominate both the beginning and the end of this value chain. This strategy unfolds by dividing the battery supply chain into upstream (raw materials), midstream (manufacturing), and downstream (application and recycling) and controlling the core technologies at each stage.
Upstream: Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE)
The first key chokepoint is Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE), a technology that is revolutionizing lithium production. The traditional method involved impounding brine lake water in vast evaporation ponds and concentrating the lithium over several months. This required large tracts of land, consumed enormous amounts of water, and had a significant environmental impact.
In contrast, DLE technology uses advanced techniques like adsorption, ion exchange, and membrane separation to selectively and directly extract lithium ions from brine. This is a revolutionary method that maximizes lithium recovery rates (up to 95% or more), slashes production time from months to hours, and minimizes water consumption and environmental footprint.
The strategic importance of DLE extends beyond mere efficiency. It shifts the source of competitive advantage from geological fortune (owning brine lakes) to technological prowess (owning extraction process IP). This opens a path for countries without massive lithium reserves to become major players in the global lithium supply chain, provided they possess DLE technology.
It is precisely at this point that immense American capital and technological power are being concentrated. A particularly noteworthy phenomenon is 'The Great Carbon Pivot.' U.S. oil giants like ExxonMobil and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology firms are entering the DLE market in force, leveraging their vast capital, geological data, and expertise in operating large-scale plants. This means Korean battery companies are now competing not just with nimble startups, but with colossal industrial capitalists who wield immense influence in Washington—a variable that fundamentally changes the competitive landscape.
Downstream: Solid-State Batteries (SSB)
The second key chokepoint is the Solid-State Battery (SSB), often called the "Holy Grail" of battery technology. Current lithium-ion batteries use a flammable liquid electrolyte, creating inherent fire and explosion risks and limiting improvements in energy density.
SSBs replace this liquid with a solid electrolyte, making them structurally safer and enabling a dramatic increase in energy density. This "game-changer" technology can significantly extend EV driving ranges and reduce charging times. The nation that masters SSB technology will not just lead the market; it will set the standards for next-generation mobility and energy. It holds the disruptive potential to render existing lithium-ion technology a relic of the past and reorder the entire industrial hierarchy.
The U.S. strategy is a "pincer movement" targeting both points simultaneously. Upstream, it aims to control the supply of key raw materials with DLE technology. Downstream, it seeks to dominate the final product standard with SSB technology. Caught in the middle of this pincer movement, Korean battery companies—despite possessing world-class midstream (manufacturing) capabilities—face the risk of being squeezed on both raw material procurement and key technology licensing, ultimately falling into a trap of technological dependency.
The Allied Front: Japan's Solid-State Patent Fortress
America's chokepoint strategy is not a solo act. It is being amplified through collaboration with key allies to form a more powerful and exclusive technology bloc, with Japan—and its automotive giant Toyota—at its center. This means the Korean battery industry is not facing a single nation, but an isolated battle against a formidable "allied front."
Toyota's Patent Fortress
In the field of solid-state batteries, Toyota's dominance is starkly evident in its overwhelming patent portfolio. According to an analysis by GlobalData, Toyota acquired a staggering 8,274 SSB-related patents in the three years from October 2020 to October 2023. This figure far surpasses the second-place holder, LG (5,539 patents), and when combined with its previously accumulated 1,300+ patents, the scale is immense.
This is not merely the byproduct of R&D; it is an intentionally constructed "patent fortress." Toyota's strategy is designed to make it nearly impossible for competitors to develop and commercialize their own SSBs without infringing on its vast patent portfolio. This serves as a powerful weapon to force latecomers into unfavorable licensing agreements or drain their R&D capacity through costly and time-consuming patent litigation. In essence, Toyota is building not only a technological advantage but also a legal arsenal to block market competition at its source.
From Lab to Factory: The Idemitsu Alliance
Toyota's strategy is not confined to paper patents. Its alliance with Japanese petrochemical giant Idemitsu Kosan demonstrates a concrete move toward commercialization. In partnership with Idemitsu, Toyota plans to mass-produce sulfide-based solid electrolytes, a key material for SSBs, with a large-scale plant scheduled for completion in 2027. This plant will have the capacity to supply approximately 50,000 EVs annually, indicating that Toyota is steadily preparing a mass-production system to meet its 2027-2028 commercialization target.
The formation of a U.S.-Japan technology alliance is becoming clear. While American startups are driving disruptive innovation with DLE and SSB source technologies, Japanese industrial giants are realizing that blueprint through overwhelming patents and materials production capacity, thereby raising market entry barriers.
This allied front presents a nightmare scenario for South Korea. Its key security ally, the United States, and its closest economic competitor and partner, Japan, are squeezing its core future industry from both sides, deepening its technological isolation. This is no longer a competition between individual companies; it has transformed into a geo-economic struggle where South Korea must fight for survival against a massive technology bloc.
South Korea at a Crossroads: Confronting Technological Encirclement
The ultimate target of this global chokepoint strategy is clear: the battery industry, a core pillar of the South Korean economy. The "K-Battery" trio—LG Energy Solution, Samsung SDI, and SK On—currently lead the global lithium-ion battery market but face a grave challenge in the race for next-generation solid-state batteries. The heart of this challenge is the risk of technological subordination.
The State of K-Battery and the Time Gap
While the three Korean battery makers are staking their survival on SSB development, a subtle but critical "time gap" with their competitors is emerging as a strategic vulnerability.
-
Samsung SDI: The most aggressive of the three, aiming to mass-produce sulfide-based SSBs by 2027. It is already operating a pilot line ("S-line") at its Suwon research institute and has entered the performance verification stage by providing samples to clients. -
LG Energy Solution: Targeting commercialization before 2030. Also focusing on sulfide systems, it began construction of a pilot line in early 2025 while diversifying its portfolio with lithium-sulfur battery development. -
SK On: Pursuing a two-track strategy to commercialize a polymer-oxide composite SSB by 2027 and a sulfide-based SSB by 2029, strengthening its technology alliance with key partner Ford.
The problem is that this timeline lags behind competitors. America's QuantumScape and Solid Power are targeting 2025-2026 for commercialization, while Japan's Toyota, with its formidable production partner, is aiming for 2027-2028. Even K-Battery's frontrunner, Samsung SDI, is one to two years behind the leading U.S. firms. This may seem short, but it can make a decisive difference in securing technology standards and the initial market. First-movers can monopolize early supply contracts with major automakers and set technical standards in their favor, making it difficult for latecomers to enter.
The Risk of Becoming the "Foxconn of Batteries"
The concern is not that Korean companies will fail to produce SSBs, but that they will be able to do so only by relying on foreign technology licenses, relegating them to the role of high-tech contract manufacturers.
Even if Korean firms maintain their world-class production efficiency and quality control, their profitability and strategic autonomy will be severely compromised if they must pay royalties for core DLE and SSB intellectual property to American and Japanese companies. This means the Korean battery industry could become the "Foxconn of the battery world": a highly skilled manufacturer that mass-produces products based on another's core innovations but captures only a fraction of the value chain's profits.
This competitive dynamic is a warning that the "Cho-gyukcha" (super-gap) strategy, long considered a success formula for Korean industry, may no longer be valid. The U.S. is not trying to catch up to Korea's manufacturing prowess; it is trying to neutralize that existing lead by changing the foundation of the industry with new technologies like DLE and SSBs. The field of competition is shifting from Korea's strength, the "factory," to America's new strength, the "laboratory and patent office."
The Future: Threat Multipliers and an Asymmetric Exit
The race for next-gen battery supremacy is not happening in a vacuum. The emergence of other disruptive technologies like quantum computing, artificial intelligence (AI), and synthetic biology acts as a complex variable that could either amplify the chokepoint threat or, conversely, offer a new escape route.
Threat Multipliers: Quantum and AI
-
Quantum Computing: The immense computational power of quantum computers promises a revolution in new materials discovery. It could radically accelerate the process of identifying novel solid electrolytes or anode materials for SSBs. The nation that first successfully applies quantum computing to battery research could create a permanent, unassailable technology gap. Given the massive investments by U.S. tech giants in this field, it is likely to act as a "threat multiplier," further cementing the existing chokepoints. -
Artificial Intelligence: AI is already reshaping industries, and batteries are no exception. AI can analyze vast materials data to predict the properties of new substances, optimize battery management systems (BMS), and precisely control complex manufacturing processes. The synergy between U.S. leadership in AI (led by Google, Microsoft, etc.) and its emerging dominance in next-gen battery tech could be powerful, shortening R&D cycles and widening the tech gap with competitors.
An Asymmetric Escape Route: Synthetic Biology
Amid these complex threats, Synthetic Biology offers a potential "asymmetric escape route" for South Korea to break through the technological encirclement. Synthetic biology is a new paradigm of technology that involves engineering and redesigning living organisms to perform industrially useful functions.
Applying synthetic biology to the battery value chain could solve existing technical challenges in entirely new ways:
-
Bio-mining: Engineering specific microorganisms to extract key minerals like lithium from low-grade ore or industrial waste. This is a revolutionary alternative that could bypass both geological limitations and the U.S.-led DLE technology chokepoint. -
Bio-materials: Developing sustainable, bio-based battery components (e.g., binders, separators, even electrolytes) through microbial fermentation. This would blaze a completely different technological path from current petrochemical-based materials, offering a chance to build a unique IP portfolio.
If the U.S. strategy is to seize chokepoints within the current technological paradigm of chemical extraction and inorganic materials, the ultimate counter-strategy is not to fight for control of those chokepoints, but to create a new paradigm that renders them irrelevant.
Synthetic biology offers precisely this possibility. It is not about building a better DLE plant; it is about teaching yeast how to process lithium, making DLE technology itself obsolete. As pioneered by U.S. firms like Ginkgo Bioworks, this could be a crucial long-term strategic hedge for South Korea to secure technological sovereignty and build a sustainable supply chain.
While we celebrated the "Miracle on the Han River" and championed a strategy of creating a "super-gap," the world was writing new rules for the game. An era of siege warfare has begun, where victory belongs not to the one who runs fastest, but to the one who seizes the critical path and paralyzes the race itself. To cling to the success formulas of the past in the face of this great transformation is the surest path to defeat. Now is the time for the wisdom to face the essence of the crisis and pioneer a path no one has taken. The future of the Korean economy depends on the journey to find answers to the unfamiliar but urgent question of technological sovereignty.