An Oligarch’s Guide to Influencing the West
The Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. Photo courtesy of Martin Cooper.
What does it take to be a philanthropist? Besides seemingly endless pockets, are there other qualities that make a donor appealing to an institution? Western institutions, including think tanks and universities, champion themselves as leaders in innovation and global thought, but at what point do donors with suspect backgrounds become a conflict of interest? Donations from corrupt individuals with a history of criminal business dealings or Kremlin ties are seemingly not a cause for concern.
Many universities, publications, and think tanks accept funding from oligarchs and kleptocrats, allowing corrupt politicians and military elites leeway to expand their realm of influence. This practice, known as reputation laundering, allows wealthy individuals to leverage donations and in return further the distance from their oligarchal past to solidify their images as philanthropic visionaries. The frequency with which Western organizations accept donations from corrupt actors reveals a disparity between the mission of these institutions and their true practices. Accepting these types of donations presents institutions with an explicit conflict of interest in which the “nonpartisan” lens that organizations pride themselves on is inarguably tainted.
One striking example of the institutional acceptance of oligarchal funding is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a prestigious think tank renowned for its exclusive membership and publications contributing to greater dialogue on foreign affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations’s internship program is highly sought after by undergraduate students given its name recognition and networking opportunities. This expansive program, named the Blavatnik Internship Program, accepts its funding from the infamous Russian oligarch Len Blavatnik.
Raised in Russia and the United States, Blavatnik studied at Columbia University and Harvard Business School before making a fortune on the Russian oil company TNK-BP. The transition from Soviet Union-era communism to current Russian capitalism cultivated an environment where a select group of men amassed great wealth from the privatization of what were previously state-run companies—like TNK-BP—in sectors such as manufacturing, mining, and food production. The unethical circumstances that allowed for Blavatnik’s accumulation of wealth were essential in Putin’s ascension to absolute power in Russia, as wealthy elites were guaranteed that their money would not be touched in exchange for staying out of politics.
For many years, attitudes toward purchases made by oligarchs remained neutral, but with heightened scrutiny around Russia, the international community has taken further notice. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West has placed numerous sanctions on Kremlin elites for their role in enabling Putin’s war. Oligarchs like Blavatnik have taken many measures to separate themselves from the Kremlin, including only maintaining citizenships in the U.S. and U.K. Strategies such as these are employed by oligarchs to signal to the West their dissociation from Putin and his autocratic policies, intending to solidify their reputation as promoters of democratic values.
Russian oligarchs, in particular, are some of the most influential patrons of the arts and cultural institutions in the West. In a broader context, corrupt actors engage in three main types of reputation laundering: philanthropy, reputation management, and image crafting, often simultaneously. Len Blavatnik is no stranger to such practices and, through his foundation, has participated in philanthropic efforts across countless sectors, including higher education, the arts, and institutions ranging from political campaigns to publications and think tanks. The inclination of elite organizations to accept donations from corrupt actors like Blavatnik highlights the discrepancy between the supposed “democratic values” of these institutions and their true practices.
In notable academic settings, reputation laundering through philanthropic efforts occurs in four ways: donations for academic programs and schools, naming rights, honorary degrees and board seats, and the offer of favorable admissions, fueling the realm of authoritarian influence in the West. Through his donations to Columbia University, prospective graduate schools, and internship opportunities, Len Blavatnik remains an inescapable presence in academic and pre-professional life, further highlighting the hypocrisy of Western institutions in combating corruption worldwide. A critical example is the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, which prides itself on developing a world “better led, better served, and better governed.” The irony is palpable given that this school would not exist without the corrupt conditions of government that allowed for Len Blavatnik’s wealth acquisition in post-Soviet Russia to begin with. Blavatnik has also donated millions to his alma mater, funding Columbia’s “Engineering Innovations in Health” grant. Such a low threshold for donations further signals to external actors that the West’s sphere of influence can be easily manipulated if your pocket is deep enough. This phenomenon presents Western institutions with a double-edged sword: accept the donations in order to support a future generation of leaders, but in doing so, further fuel corruption and autocracies by expanding their soft power and normalization.
The concentration of wealth and power in an elite minority laid the foundation for Putin’s authoritarian regime, which continues to threaten democracy worldwide. Russian oligarchs represent corruption to the fullest extent, exploiting international loopholes to diversify their portfolios and expand their reach. The expansive grasp that oligarchs like Blavatnik have on various fields of study across the board further demonstrates their influence in every aspect of life, beginning with the education of the next generation of leaders. By providing substantial resources for future innovators, Blavatnik’s reputation laundering ensures the longevity of his name.
As students, this presents a complicated moral dilemma: how does one reap the benefits of these prestigious programs without further reinforcing the corrupt influence that is funding them? A necessary step is to call attention to the implications of the funding and further scrutinize the frequency with which it occurs. These donations are a threat to democratic values, such as free speech and political participation, integral to the missions many prominent institutions are committed to upholding. The danger posed by this lack of institutional moral clarity interferes with the capacity for universities, cultural hubs, and think tanks to operate with their intended function. Ultimately, continued acceptance of corrupt reputation-enhancing practices weakens the credibility of democratic states in fighting corruption, highlighting the need for increased transparency and moral clarity in institutional donation practices.
Amy Watkins (BC ’25) is a staff writer for CPR studying political science with a concentration in international relations. She is interested in American foreign policy, corrupt global financial flows, and intelligence. In her free time, she enjoys spending time outdoors—whether it be skiing, hiking, or walking in Riverside Park.