GIVING
Andrey Yakunin approaches charitable activity as a voluntary commitment grounded in personal judgement rather than obligation. In his view, giving should remain a matter of choice, not a response to external pressure or expectation.
This perspective is shaped by personal experience and by a broader concern that systems based on compulsion can weaken both responsibility and initiative. As a result, he supports a limited number of initiatives, selected independently and guided by a clear set of principles.
If you are involved in a project led by committed individuals and aligned with these principles, you are welcome to get in touch.
Principles
Andrey’s approach to giving is based on five core principles:
Giving must be voluntary, never compulsory
Giving should remain a matter of choice. When it becomes obligation, it ceases to be charitable.
True charity is silent and expects nothing in return
Drawing on Christian tradition, true giving requires no audience, recognition or reward.
Support should restore agency, not create dependency
Effective initiatives strengthen people’s ability to act on their own behalf rather than creating dependency. Help that substitutes dependence for autonomy undermines dignity, regardless of good intentions.
Personal judgment cannot be delegated to institutions
Moral judgement remains individual. It cannot be delegated to institutions, popular consensus or trending causes.
Restraint and discretion over scale and visibility
Priority is given to sustained, practical support over large-scale or highly visible initiatives.
In Andrey’s Words
A Different Framework
Within the Christian tradition, charity is understood as a discipline rather than a transaction. To give in order to receive something in return – whether recognition, gratitude or reassurance – is not to give, but to barter.
Giving should remain a voluntary act of judgement, undertaken without expectation and without claim to moral credit. When it becomes obligation, it loses its meaning. When it requires an audience, it becomes performance.
Limits
I do not regard moral responsibility as something that can be delegated to institutions, states or popular narratives.
I avoid projects that treat contributors as fulfilling a moral debt, or that rely on public demonstration as proof of ethical standing. In such cases, both the intention and the outcome are often compromised.
Nor do I support initiatives whose primary function is to legitimize systems of compulsion – bureaucratic, ideological or cultural – by clothing them in the language of care.
Boundaries
There are causes with which I was previously associated and from which I have withdrawn. This has not been due to a change in their stated aims, but to changes in the conditions under which they operate.
Where continued involvement would imply acceptance of practices I consider legally or ethically indefensible, I do not participate.
What I Support
The initiatives I support tend to focus on a small number of areas: cultural heritage, displaced communities, children’s health and education.
In each case, the emphasis is on restoring or preserving agency. This includes work with displaced young people, where the objective is to support independence rather than administer care, and cultural or educational projects that operate without political or ideological mediation.
Children’s healthcare remains a priority, as vulnerability in this context is immediate and requires no further justification.
Some of these initiatives are referenced publicly with their consent. Others are not named, reflecting a preference for discretion.
Continuity
This approach is unlikely to align with expectations of scale, visibility or moral consensus. It is not intended to.
I will continue to support a limited number of initiatives that meet these criteria and will step away where conditions change.
What matters is that giving remains an act of judgement rather than compliance.