Vladimir Potanin about his approach to philanthropy

First of all, I must say that although the foundation has existed for just over 20 years, I started doing charity work long before the foundation was created. The foundation was established at a time when both I and the companies I led had already been engaged in this for a long time. It was simply a realization that charity also needs to be approached systematically. It is, in a way, a kind of business, as paradoxical as it sounds. It is an endeavor that needs to be organized so that aid reaches those for whom it is intended, that it is effective for them, and to select projects that are truly useful and in demand. In my view, the creation of the foundation serves these purposes. As I engage in this activity, I come to understand how it should be structured in the long term. Many of the programs the foundation runs have proven to be in demand. Students need scholarships, museums—especially small museums—need support, various grants, interesting materials that have not come to public attention need publication, and so on. Many of these programs, I would like to see them live for a long time, of course modified and adapted to the environment, but still enduring, so that the people involved in them are confident that they have a long-term perspective, not just the whim of one wealthy person. Therefore, I thought about giving this activity not only a systematic but also a long-term character. So we began to work on developing legislation for endowments, that is, for target capital funds. First, at the legislative level, it became possible in our country, and then we created endowments ourselves and helped others. We even had and still have a special program to help people who are thinking of creating endowments but lack sufficient experience and access to expertise. Over the past 20 years since the foundation was created, I have tried to set aside my personal preferences and listen more to what the people working in the foundation say, because they are in the field, they understand better.

A crisis is a time of opportunity, but I would not compare the pandemic to a crisis, because the pandemic brought grief and problems, but it did not break the system. It did not break our society, it did not break people's morale and mental state. On the contrary, it rather united us and made us think about certain things. So the pandemic is more like a natural disaster that simply needs to be endured. But it certainly shook people up and made them reflect. However, when talking about the prospects for the work of charitable foundations and individual philanthropists, I think that events like the pandemic make this movement more robust, so to speak. They greatly expand the boundaries of what is now commonly called the ecosystem—a system in which charity is in demand and treated with respect as a normal life necessity. The pandemic has greatly expanded the boundaries of this system.

Russia and its philanthropists are well known, if only because their efforts have created leading world museums. But it seems to me that while being proud of our traditions and reviving them, we absolutely do not need to compete with anyone. The field of activity for philanthropists is endless, boundless, and it will never shrink. You know, like Kant's theory of the knowability of the world: the more we learn about the world, the more points of contact we have with the unknown. Something similar happens with charity. The more we engage in charity, the better we begin to understand what problems exist in society and among people, the wider the field of activity becomes. And since that is the case, since we do not set some ultimate goal for ourselves but instead move toward expanding this activity, the competitive spirit is, in a sense, inappropriate. Who gave more money, who created more programs, who helped more museums—that kind of competition, in my opinion, is not so much inappropriate as it is unnecessary. Philanthropists have no ultimate goal to eradicate something, for example. There are goals that are probably unattainable from a philosophical point of view, but which humanity thinks about and works on—like eradicating crime or poverty. It is clear that such a goal can be set, and society and governments will pursue it, and we probably understand in everyday life that it is an endless road. But besides that, charity has no such goal. We cannot eradicate anything; on the contrary, we can only encourage people to do good, and the more good there is, the better. Especially since in recent years I have noticed with concern that quite different cultural preferences are emerging in Europe, America, and Russia. I do not like to speculate about whether we have some special path. I believe that as a country, we are very much integrated into European values and global values in general. This is good; it testifies to the strength of our country and our culture. Nevertheless, cultural differences are becoming very noticeable. Therefore, in my opinion, the main thing is that philanthropists can more effectively address the problems that arise in our society and our community, rather than competing with someone else.