Did you imagine your imprisonment would last this long?

Yes, I did. I told my relatives and friends as much. They thought I was showing off - they just didn’t believe it. But I knew the Soviet authorities - and they’re still the same. Bureaucrats can’t stand independent people - they’re afraid of them.

Do you have any idea when you might be freed?

When the authorities feel more confident. Maybe this year, maybe never.

Why did the powers-that-be decide to arrest and keep you in custody when you weren’t running away? Most people believe your imprisonment was the Kremlin’s revenge for your active involvement in politics and your attempts to get your allies into parliament. Do you agree?

I’m personally all for a strong state. But I’ve always believed - and still do - that the strength of a state lies, not in the power of its officials, but in the people’s trust, in the ability to attract the best brains and to concentrate them on what society needs to be done, in the interaction between government and public institutions.

That’s why I supported various political parties and a number of public institutions - because I’m convinced our country needs to consider different opinions and viewpoints, It needs a strong and independent opposition.

I’m not after a political career, but I consider it my public duty - the duty of everyone as a citizen - to prevent uniformity of thought and hostility towards an independent political opposition from dominatingin this country.

Is your imprisonment a demonstration of a committed, principled and unbending attitude towards the authorities or rather the outcome of mistakes made by you in business and/or public life?

Both. If it wasn’t for some sort of principled commitment, I’d be abroad by now or or in all the right reception-rooms. But I just didn’t want it any longer - I simply couldn’t. I used to be able to, but at some point I started feeling more like a citizen than a businessman. On the other hand, if it hadn’t been for my mistakes, I’d have more people now trusting and understanding me. I hope I still have time to earn their trust.

What do you think of the political reforms the Kremlin’s been undertaking – the appointment of governors, parliamentary elections only by party list and so on?

As things stand, the authorities seem to believe they can build a modern economy and a modern state with a ‘puppet’ opposition. But the people, though they trust the President, know better. The real opposition will of course be between bureaucratic capitalism and civil society. Based on what and which party, I don’t know. But we’re going to see it in 2006.

If the authorities press on regardless, then the opposition will be radical.

But in any case in today’s global world it’s impossible to replace political struggle with political technology for long.

The consequences of self-deception can always be seen by the neighbours. The choice isn’t large: either stagnation or revolution. I hope God will have mercy on us.

Did you try to come to terms with the authorities on what it might take to get you free? Not via lawyers’ appeals, but through conversation or correspondence with the people who control both the proceedings and the court?

I repeatedly and openly suggested that the authorities should take my stake in Yukos. That wasn’t an attempt to buy my freedom. I hoped that if those who wanted Yukos got my shares, then they wouldn’t ruin it, depriving in the process hundreds of thousands of Yukos employees of both work and hope, and harming everyone else who lived in the regions dependent on its taxes. As has happened over and over again in Russian history, though, these people’s destinies were sacrificed to the vested interests of the officials who stole its main asset, Yuganskneftegas.

What would you say to Vladimir Putin if you now had a chance?

Mr. President, trust your people. We all want to be proud of our country, we all deeply desire the best for it, even if we see it differently from You or Your subjects. We want to carve out our own destinies both in big matters and in small. And we have a right to do so.

What are you going to do when you’re freed? Will you stay in Russia?

I’d be very reluctant to leave - though I can’t see myself in business any more. When you watch officials running into the ground something you’ve invested a lot of effort in, you simply don’t have the stomach to start all over again. As for the educational and public projects I’ve been involved in for three years via Open Russia, I hope to continue with them and see through a university project.

What do you do in your spare time when you’re not busy meeting lawyers or attending court?

You can’t do as much exercise as you’d like – there’s too little room and only a one-hour walk daily. But I’m trying to keep fit.

I read books, fiction and history books; I watch TV; answer letters, I think. In general I try to keep my mind in shape. Books arrive all the time. I do a lot of reading, both textbooks and literature – now I’ve got The Moscow Saga on my table.

Journals and newspapers come in piles - though sometimes one doesn’t want to read them; it’s better to remain ignorant of it all…

Who writes to you and about what?

They write a great deal and from everywhere, from both Russia and abroad. There are almost no poison-pen letters. Everyone sympathizes, some offer support and some ask for help. There’s little I can do now. Only one in ten letters gets answered still.

Don’t you think you should’ve left Russia when you had a chance? Then you could have spoken out about the goings-on in the company and the country’s political life.

You can’t be really outspoken in prison. Still, I think in a way I’m better heard. And it’s hard to live outside the motherland - at least it is for me.

Why didn’t you leave, given that the authorities’ intentions towards you were almost immediately clear?

My reputation wouldn’t allow me to leave - my leaving would have been interpreted as an admission of guilt. And I do believe in this country. I didn’t want my departure to be seen as a sign that young and talented people just starting out had no future here. We need to prove that this isn’t true - we need to revive the belief and hope of the younger generation. I think Russian children, including my own, have a right to grow up in a free and democratic Russia. Besides it was unacceptable for me to leave when my friend and partner was in prison.

Do you regret what you’ve had to sacrifice in order to achieve your goals? Isn’t it too high a price for power and material comfort?

I’ve already borne the loss of what I owned - and it certainly hurts having to watch the country’s best company falling to pieces because of the incompetence of executives acting for the authorities. But what I’ve been most concerned about is the fate of 150,000 employees and their families scattered across different regions. This is too high a price to pay.

As far as I personally am concerned, I care less about my own future than that of my relatives, colleagues and ordinary Yukos and Group Menatep employees. About those who’ve had to leave their motherland and families, about the company lawyer Svetlana Bakhmina, a young woman and mother of two children who’s been thrown into jail and is now being grilled. All these people have been put under unprecedented pressure by the Russian authorities.

Do you think the methods you used to earn a fortune were ethical?

When I started making money, I acted within the framework of the laws as they existed at the time. Perhaps they weren’t ideal but I never stepped over the line. In the process of building up my business, I rethought a lot of things in my life and started consolidating it in line with the principle of transparency and high standards of ethics. You can judge by the results. We managed to breathe new life into the company, to pay off its tax liabilities and its debts to its employees - estimated at billions of dollars - and to increase its share price 30 times over. Yukos, as the country’s second highest taxpayer after Gazprom (though probably the highest right now), made a considerable contribution to the development of the whole country. Most importantly, we established a socially-active corporation - we returned thousands of people to their jobs and gave them stability and hope for the future.

If you win this case, do you think you’ll be set free? Or will you be faced with more and different charges?

I’m ready for anything. The prosecution, as everyone can see, is falling apart for lack of evidence. Prosecution witnesses have for the most part testified, not against me, but in my favour.

The fact my friend and partner Leonid Nevzlin has been accused of murder, and ordinary Yukos employees have been searched and thrown into jail on trumped-up charges leaves one with little doubt that the Prosecutor's office’s can charge anyone and everyone with the most outlandish crime on no evidence at all.

The authorities have already shown that they’ll use any political ruse to legally prettify confiscation of property. That’s why I think that whatever they do has to be seen in this way. But I’m not afraid of being deprived of property and freedom by these kangaroo - or Basmanny - proceedings. Most important for me is my good name - which they can’t touch.

Many people, despite everything, are convinced you broke the law. What’s your reaction?

The most important thing for me is to have everyone who worked with me and knew me trust me. Rest assured, we worked legally - and we were one of the first companies to start working transparently and ethically. We were part of the development of the democratic process in Russia. I still have hope that the tendencies encouraged by us will come out on top in business, society and the justice system. We are the future.

Do you think the court had grounds to hold the proceedings in the Pichugin case and part of your hearings in camera?

No. I’m outraged at the fact that the hearings in Pichugin case were held - and are being held - in camera. Holding closed proceedings covers up the fact that the Prosecutor's office hasn’t even tried to prove the existence of any evidence that his arrest was necessary. And the court has fallen in line without even asking for evidence that he intended to evade justice. This runs counter to the basic law and Constitution of the Russian Federation. It’s a crime against justice - though, as we’ve now seen, it hasn’t helped much: The jury recognized the prosecution’s inadequacy, so the authorities had to dismiss it.

I’m happy, on the other hand, that the public has had access to the hearings in Lebedev’s, Krainov’s and my case - even though it’s been limited. An open court allows those whose opinions I value to see that I’ve got nothing to be ashamed of in my business dealings.

Yukos executives have been accused, not only of economic crimes, but also of involvement in murder. Can you prove you weren’t involved in the attempts on Rybin’s life?

Murdering Rybin wouldn’t have benefited Yukos in any way, since he’d already been stripped of his business by Russian and international courts. His business was dishonest and the court judgments said as much. So why should a company want to do away with someone who didn’t stand a chance of getting back his business? Strange, too, that in the course of two so-called murder attempts he didn’t receive so much as a scratch. Yet it was after them that he started demanding ‘compensation’ from the company. Rybin either ordered them himself in order to blackmail Yukos (which is more likely, since otherwise he’d have been killed or at least made afraid of returning to Russia), or else - less probably - he got into debt with his ‘protection’ and couldn’t pay it off because of his failure to win cases against Yukos. What might back up this version is the fact that he somehow got hold of several hundred million just before the privatization of VNK, but he was unable to compete with Yukos and the money didn’t emerge - that’s to say he borrowed it from somebody. In addition, other VNK traders (Oleg Kantor, the Yugorsky Bank, Berlend) were done away with at various times, and it would be logical to believe that the murder attempt on Rybin was related to this - and not to Yukos at all.

How did the privatization process work? And why were violations in it found by the government so many years later? You’re accused of failing to fulfil your responsibilities towards Apatit and the Samoilov Research Institute for Minerals, Insecticides and Fungicides (NIUIF). What comments do you have?

The VNK acquisition cost us $1.4 billion, at the risk of forfeiting our auction down-payment. Yukos cost us $450 million, with the same risk. The privatizating of Yukos took from September 1995 to the end of 1996. In 1997 there was a change of leadership and after that all connections with criminal groups were cut. We ended loss-making lines and put an end to all the in-fighting. Probably the belated ‘insight’ of the government into what it alleges took place is related to its intention to wrest back control of enterprises that began over the years to show large profits.

Apatit took off within a year of privatization and is still going strong today - as witnesses during the trial have confirmed. All the projected manufacturing and financial goals have been reached and the management can take a lot of credit for reaching them with fewer outgoings.

NIUIF today is the biggest scientific research centre in the chemical and petrochemical industry. The facts show that the responsibilities we took on vis-à-vis Apatit and NIUIF were fully discharged

You’re accused of granting Gusinsky credit against NTV assets. Where did the money go?

The credit to back up available funds was made with the approval of the Yukos board. Everyone was aware how much NTV assets were worth at the time, as well as why those funds were needed and where they went. The recent decision of the Strasbourg court, pronouncing the Russian Federation’s arrest of Gusinsky illegal, demonstrates that its chief aim was the confiscation of his property, beginning with NTV.

As far as the allocation of the credit is concerned, in the view of the Yukos board - most of whose members are independent - no damage whatsoever was done to the company.

What are the accusations against you as an individual taxpayer?

I’m accused as an individual entrepreneur of not providing my services as a consultant while receiving and declaring an income of some $300,000 to $1,000,000 a year. The prosecution’s chief argument on this issue is that it simply ‘doesn’t believe’ I provided this consultation. Indeed, its investigators didn’t even bother to present any evidence that I didn’t. Not a single individual or legal entity which used my services was questioned.

So the prosecution’s contentions are simply unfounded. Investigators might as well come to anybody at all and say he got paid illegally - because his services simply couldn’t cost that sort of money, for example. Or because the investigators ‘don’t believe’ he actually did the work involved. As you well know, though, belief means nothing at all when it comes to courts. Evidence is necessary, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, as well as the rest of it, there’s no evidence at all.

Why is there no prosecution of the company that was responsible for the audit of Yukos’ taxes?

Why is there no prosecution of the officials who ‘overlooked’ Yukos’ alleged tax violations? The company went through up to 3,000 different-level inspections a year. The inspectors always found some violations. Some of them were sorted out by the company without recourse to the courts; others went through litigation. This is just business as usual. Unfortunately the events of the last year clearly show that in this instance the authorities are really not interested in finding out the truth.

Is your arrest to do with politics?

Yes. Nobody’s in any doubt. Some people are indignant at my arrest, others are happy. But most of them agree it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the law. It’s quite plain both to me and my lawyers that the prosecution of hundreds of ordinary people, chosen out of the blue in the so-called Yukos case, is politically-motivated. There was no criminality in this case. What the prosecutors are attempting to do is to cobble together a legal excuse for the theft of my property - Yukos.

You say your case is political. But why should they have arrested Pichugin and Lebedev? It’s unlikely the authorities were afraid that Pichugin would become a political figure…

Quite apart from Pichugin and Lebedev, they’ve arrested others, among them a young woman, the mother of two children, who’s being kept in prison for my edification. The case is without any doubt a political one, ordered from above - and that was plain right from the beginning.

In March 2003, certain officials in the President’s administration asked for the filing of a criminal case against me. After looking into my activities, the Prosecutor's office, which had been asked ‘to collect enough materials to get him jailed’, came to the conclusion: ‘No violations’. In spite of this, the case went forward.

Please explain how someone can be prosecuted on the basis of laws that underwrite what he does? How can a person, moreover, be prosecuted for violations unspecified by current legislation?

That’s a rhetorical question. My lawyers and I have long been trying to answer it. That’s why the outcome of my trial and the so-called Yukos case creates a dangerous precedent for the whole of Russian society. We’ve always observed the laws in operation at any specific time. But if the authorities decide it can change the laws and the rules of the game after the fact, then they can charge absolutely anyone.

Did you see the ‘Prepaid Act of Terror’ film? Who do you think was behind it?

It was propaganda about the financing of terrorists by Yukos - a complete betrayal by the government. The new management that came to Yukos after privatization worked with the state to eradicate bandits, including Chechens. It’s understandable that after privatization the bandits killed various officials and covered up the traces. Even now the most criminal businesses are those that belong to the state. An example from the past: Tomskneft got loans in cash at a 213% rate of interest. An example from the present: the Tuapse and Novorossiisk fields.

When the company exposed as bandits ex-state companies, when it provided the government with oil products on credit, when it provided medical treatment and helped those who came back from hot spots, all this was taken for granted. We don’t expect gratitude, it’s our duty. All of it, though, is now forgotten.

Given that the President himself has personally expressed his hostility towards you and has referred publicly to your guilt, do you feel you can still expect anything other than bias from a Russian court?

As to the President’s personal antipathy, I’m not sure. A president ought never to be governed by personal emotion - he doesn't have a right to it as guarantor of the Constitution. He ought to be governed by the interests of the country and its citizens. In this particular context, he ought to be interested in restoring citizens’ trust in the courts. Otherwise the idea of law in Russia will turn into a dysfunctional abstraction.

As the guarantor of the Constitution, the President is obliged to guarantee observance of the basic laws of the country. When he calls for the confirmation of the General Prosecutor before the Federation Council, he ought also to be taking responsibility for his future actions.

Should other major entrepreneurs watch their backs - or do you think the message of the supreme power is addressed to you personally?

I think they should. With this sort of attitude to the law, not only a big businessman but anybody at all can fall foul of a bandit raid cloaked in Basmanny justice.

Dear Mr. Khodorkovsky! First of all, I don’t believe you will stay in prison for long. Russia can’t risk the loss of its international reputation. Do you think that by punishing you the government is making a show of strength - ‘We can help you or destroy you as we want’? Can the court consider actions which were taken in the absence of a Constitution? Can they in this way attempt to make up for their mistakes?

As for what the government was after in initiating the Yukos case, I go with the flow here. One of its aims was to browbeat the business community and reduce it to another building block in the hierarchy of power. As for what’s happened in the arbitration court, it’s become quite obvious that the accusations made against me and my company have no legal basis. We have always acted in accordance with the law. It’s true that the laws adopted in the 1990s were often contradictory and a great deal less than perfect. However, the company and its shareholders can’t be held responsible for gaps in the legislation - that’s the responsibility of officialdom.

Do you think the Presidential Administration has had an influence over the course of events or are proceedings totally under the control of the powers-that-be in the tax and judicial branches? Are there ‘bosses’ in your case? Do you know who they are? If so, can you tell us? And are you afraid of them?

We know who’s behind what’s happened. They showed their face during the sham auction of Yuganskneftegas. They’re the most odious representatives of the growing and visibly fattening state bureaucracy. It’s sad that the separation of the judiciary and executive branches of government has failed to establish itself in Russia.

How do you account for your decision to resign from the Yukos chairmanship? Did you seriously offer to hand over your shares to the government?

There’s business and then there’s self-worth, the honour of a human being. When my friend Platon Lebedev was put in prison unjustly, I couldn’t keep silent. I had to leave the company and give up the shares to prevent the company and its employees from being exposed to the danger of prosecution. Unfortunately it didn’t help.

Why didn’t you leave the chairmanship before you got involved in politics?

The reasons for my resignation were given in my announcement. First and foremost, I didn’t want company staff - 150,000 of them - to suffer because of the attacks on me. But I wasn’t engaged in any political activity. Several years ago I became involved in charitable and public works. Now I understand I should’ve resigned earlier and devoted a lot more time to these social projects.

Many people say you’re paying for your political ambitions. What’s your response to that?

I don’t have any political ambitions, but I have always been open and straightforward about my political preferences. All the support I gave political parties came from my own personal money. There’s no breach of the law or morality here. I’ve had enough of power. As for such clout and recognizability as I have, nobody can take it away from me even if they steal all my property.

In your article ‘The Crisis of Liberalism’ you wrote about the problems of Russia’s so-called ‘right-wing’ parties. What do you think the ‘right’ ought to do if it’s not to be forced out of the political arena?

Unfortunately the parties of the right failed to get in at the elections. I think in any normal parliament all parties across the political spectrum ought to be represented, especially if they stand for the interests of some 15% of the population and espouse ‘right-wing’ liberal values.

Now their main goal is to get in at the next elections with a positive programme, a concrete and practical agenda that makes use of young people’s interest in public activities and relies on a confidence that the success of their economic programme stems from the same root as their personal involvement in civil society.

Do you agree with Berezovsky that democracy in Russia will only be possible after the country’s authoritarian tendencies have reached some sort of climax?

I don’t really like Berezovsky’s position. He wants a victory for democracy at the expense of a breakdown in the state - it will lead to civil war and the collapse of the country. I see another way out - a way of small, pragmatic steps in the interests of the whole society, combined with the gradual construction of democratic public structures. We have to think in terms of, say, 10 years - since that’s the usual ‘rest’ period for social reforms.

Mikhail, what do you think is Russia’s chief problem, the one that hampers its development most of all?

Russia’s central problem is the violation of the rights of the individual. The issue of the inviolability of private property is a particular instance of an individual’s rights - and most important here, I think, is the issue of the control society ought to have over politicians and bureaucrats, and the degree of transparency it ought to be guaranteed in the way the government spends tax revenues. Any use of force, however, will only strengthen the role of the bureaucracy and reinforce its neglect of the people’s political, economic and domestic interests. One problem in Russia is the independence of the courts and the fact that the 49th Article of the Constitution - enshrining the presumption of innocence - doesn’t function. The courts don’t require evidence if the Prosecutor's office is insistent enough. All this threatens the security of each and every citizen in the country.

Yukos tried to influence political decision-making, to ‘buy’, in effect, the Duma. You became seriously involved in politics. Did you really believe the authorities would turn a blind eye?

The accusation that the company allegedly bought Duma legislators and so on is a travesty of the truth. The company publicly and openly lobbied in the Duma alongside Lukoil, TNK and Sibneft. These companies together promoted the interests of the industrial sector and no-one said a word. Metal and power companies, beer producers and anyone else who wants to promote his business’s interests are involved in exactly the same thing. It’s absolutely normal practice for business representatives to discuss with the Prime Minister and the President the prospects for their own industrial sectors in the Duma. If we want to be a normal state, then we have to get used to public lobbying, instead of coming over all indignant after we’ve agreed to drafts of whatever bills are under consideration.

I didn’t attempt to ‘buy’ the Duma or use the fact to put pressure on the government. I gave help to the Union of Right Forces - which had not a single Yukos employee on its party list. I gave help to the Yabloko party which had three executives from Yukos and Open Russia - very decent people - on its list. As for the Russian Communist Party, three Yukos people were involved: among them ex-KGB general Kondaurov and the pre-privatization head of Yukos, Muravlenko (a so-called ‘red’ director whose attitude to the Communist party is a lot better than his attitude to oligarchs). As for Ermolin’s inclusion on United Russia’s list, that was the responsibility of the presidential administration and not mine. This is clearly not a case of buying votes - and unlike some of the things our colleagues did, it was completely above-board. In my view, political activity and financial backing have to be out in the open to be civilized.

Why did Yukos give up on arbitration proceedings? Had all procedural possibilities been used up? Or was the tactic: ‘Pay up, then prove that you were right all along and get the money back’? Out of desperation? Or as the result of a sober calculation, with the aim of keeping at least the remnants of a once strong and solid company?

The company hasn’t given up. All the court’s rulings are challenged by the lawyers on appeal. However, Yukos has always acted - and will act in the future - in accordance with the law. Even though it may be convinced of the inequity of the court’s rulings, the company can’t allow itself to break the law.

I don’t control the management’s actions, but I’m convinced they’re professional people who will do their utmost to safeguard the interests of all the company’s shareholders.

Why does Yukos pay if it says it hasn’t broken the law? New tax claims have recently been filed against Yukos subsidiaries. What’s the company going to do, given this?

As the company has no chance of defending its position in a Russian court, it’s had to resort to allocations and resign itself to paying out exorbitant sums - even though the allocations method imposed by the Tax Ministry foists onto the parent company the difference between the local cost of oil and its sale-price, either as exported or as used in refined form inside Russia. Thus filing any additional claims against the subsidiaries is impossible - the parent company is already paying for everything. The arresting of the accounts - monies from oil sales that reach subsidiaries’ accounts are called the ‘personal money’ of the chief accountant - has reduced the whole situation to a farce. Given the fact that the enterprises concerned are responsible for whole cities and are involved in extremely hazardous production methods, the farce borders on crime. The prosecutor’s unprecedented decision to interpret company funds as the chief accountant’s personal ones - and arrest them on this ground - defies common sense.

Mikhail, could you explain why you think the tax charges imposed on Yukos over the past few years are illegal?

Kudrin [Finance Minister] and Bakaev [head of the accounting and reporting department of the Finance Ministry] have so far admitted that virtually all companies paid taxes through ‘offshore’ administrative-territorial formations - a perfectly legal tax concession but one they don’t like. Check-ups were carried out many times every year.

I think Golikov’s (the deputy tax minister’s) position is totally unacceptable: ‘It doesn’t matter who made the deals or received the profits - they simply charge the share-holder or any other affiliated person’ - all of which runs counter to the Tax Code, which clearly spells out that you can’t pay taxes for a third person. Of course all Russian enterprises have always charged and paid taxes on the deals made by them and the profits they’ve received - and the recasting of this principle after the event will cause complete confusion in the country’s economy. Though in this case it’s funny: Yukos will have to get back any taxes which are paid by Yukos shareholders at the place of their registration in Cyprus or elsewhere since it is precisely they who own Yukos and manage it through the board. This will be an unprecedented gift from the Russian budget and a totally new reading of the Tax Code.

Could a credit from abroad be a constructive way out for the company as a way of paying off the tax debt imposed by the court?

As you know, the company’s senior management worked out a number of ways of resolving the situation and passed their suggestions on to the government. But all of them were ignored. Actually what’s at issue here is not finding a way out of the situation - that’s already been done. The problem lies in the government’s total refusal to meet the company halfway - which demonstrates its unwillingness to minimize the losses sustained by the whole economy as a result of the attack on Yukos. The authorities’ actions show they’re quite happy to ignore the interests of society.

The major shareholders in Yukos said over and over again that they were ready to give up their shares if that would rescue the company. The authorities said not a word.

What do you think the government will gain by ruining the company?

We can already see the fallout from the Yukos case - capital outflow, a downturn in the investment climate, a slump in industrial production, a slowdown in economic growth and the undermining of Russia’s international reputation. I think the long-term consequences will be just as bleak. This sort of action by the state, for example, may well destroy the budding of entrepreneurial initiative. Unfortunately the people who launched the attack on the company are more concerned with their own vested interests than with the general good of the populace or Russia’s future.

What may be the political effects of the Yukos case?

The authorities have shown a total disregard of the law and of human rights. It’s true that a considerable part of Russian society is completely indifferent to human rights - for 70 years people simply had no idea that life had more to offer than the USSR. At the same time the Yukos case has demonstrated that the most active and energetic people in society are ready to assert their rights. I only hope the potential of Russian society will help it to resist a further tightening of the screws.

How much credence do you give to the remark of the director of the US Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, that the Russian authorities’ charges against Yukos helped to create an upsurge in world oil prices?

I think that the uncertainty that surrounded Yukos became one of the key factors in the rise in the price of oil.

Why do you think the authorities took such a tough line on you and Yukos? Were you the only one to have permitted violations, while all other oligarchs conducted business solely by legal means?

I think the authorities didn’t like the way we wanted to conduct business, not by fly-by-night methods, but in accordance with the law.You’re aware that Yukos became the first company in Russia to switch to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Well, the authorities aren’t really interested in Russian business becoming open and transparent.

How do you account for the state’s, the business community’s and the mass media’s lack of interest in the idea and practicability of a society based on social partnership?

As things stand, the business community hasn’t understood that in the long term the social-partnership option will not only benefit society but also their own companies. The authorities, unfortunately and apart from anything else, are too preoccupied with their own selfish interests to be interested in society’s at all. And as for the mass media, their interest in the idea certainly hasn’t seen much growth over the past few years. But the printed media and the Internet - which remain more of less independent of the authorities - can still influence state policy on this issue.

If Russia does take the path to a democratic civil society, what special Russian values, characteristics or historical experiences will influence, in your opinion, the form it takes?

Russia has unquestionably inherited an unusual historical past and an idiosyncratic mind-set, both of which influence its political ordering. . It’s possible that Russia’s path to civil society will be uncomfortable and will demand serious effort from each and every citizen. On the other hand, I believe there are necessary preconditions for the establishment of democracy.

Though you probably have enough on your plate without having to think about this, what’s your opinion of the reforms now in progress and of the government’s agenda: the laws on meetings, gatherings and referenda; the monetization of benefits; the increase in mining-operations tax and in customs-duties on oil and oil-products; the bank crisis provoked by the Central Bank and the Federal Financial Monitoring Service; and the failure to make use of the stabilization fund? What’s your rating of those in power (the President, the Prosecutor, etc.)? Where are they trying to lead the country? And do they understand the macroeconomic consequences of the campaign against you?

I carefully follow current events, including political developments, and I think that some of the government’s initiatives - including the law on meetings - pose a fundamental threat to democracy. Economic instability and a downturn in economic growth are natural outcomes of its destabilizing policies. When the authorities break the law, what they do can never be really effective.

People in power, in my opinion, don’t always understand that their actions have consequences - some of which can already be seen.

Often invoked in your case is the phrase ‘a battle between power and big business’. But don’t you think it’s both a bit more serious and more simple than that? Maybe the power in this case is simply a reflection of the people: i.e. both feed off and on on one another. And isn’t it both thankless and pointless to battle against an entire people?

Part of Russian society is genuinely hostile towards me personally, towards Yukos and towards business in general. I think the problem lies in it not having access to reliable information about how big business works - and this is used by the authorities to foist the blame for any trouble that happens onto so-called oligarchs. My task is not to struggle against society but to work for its general good. Otherwise I wouldn’t have put so much effort into the creation of my business in Russia and into the development of social projects.

Mr. Khodorkovsky, are you more dreamer than realist?

I’m a realist who hopes to put his dreams into practice - and so far I’ve done so. By recasting my dreams as objectives and means I’ve managed to achieve them. Now my goal is to win my freedom and commit myself to working for the general good of the society.

Dear Mikhail Khodorkovsky, what factors do you think smoothed the way to your becoming one of the world’s leading businessmen?

I don’t know any universal recipes for success. But in any situation the most important thing is to define your goals and do everything you can to reach them. If you want to succeed. you’ve got to believe in yourself and face up to everything that may be stand your way. Sooner or later you’ll reap the reward.

What today is your most deep-felt wish?

For freedom, of course - and to prove the baselessness of the charges brought against me and my colleagues.

How do you manage to avoid being brought to your knees, but somehow remain cheerful after a year of imprisonment and with all the pressure placed on you by various sectors of society? What gives you strength in the campaign against you and your company?

The sure knowledge that I’m right, and the support of my family and those who think as I do.

Do you believe you have many supporters?

I know it. A huge number of letters are sent to the Press Centre website and to the detention facility. Thank you for that. Believe in my innocence and in me - that’s the best help you can give me. Believe in the ability of the law to resolve matters, as my partners and I did. Believe in Russia.

What’s your attitude towards the depoliticization of contemporary Russia? Why are there no ‘real’ political parties?

A large part of Russian society is too busy keeping its head above water to bother much with politics. This works to the authorities’ benefit to a degree - they can break the law without having to cope with public opinion. So long as Russia remains without a stable civil society, we’ll never be able to achieve true well-being. That’s why I see my chief task as being the development of civil awareness and the facilitation of democratic institutions.

Real political parties are created to represent the political interests of citizens. When the political and legal culture is in decline, real political parties get replaced by pseudo- or quasi-political ones…

Does Mr. Khodorkovsky consider himself a patriot whose major sin was the encouragement of democracy and civil society in Russia through the sponsorship of political parties? What would you say to Russians if you had a chance to speak to them on TV?

Yes, I consider myself a patriot - something I’ve proved over and over again, I think, by my work for the general good of the entire country. In my message I’d call on every Russian citizen to ask himself the question I asked myself several years ago, ‘What have I done for my country and what else can I do for it?’ I knew the answer at the time - and that’s why I started up projects in education and youth-guidance. I believed the younger generation deserved to live in a democratic country.

I’m convinced that the accusations made against myself and Yukos are politically-motivated. The constitution of the Russian Federation mandates political diversity and a multi-party system in our country. In openly supporting democratic parties at the recent Duma elections, I, as a citizen of the Russian Federation, was simply exercising my constitutional rights.

For a person who loves and understand what freedom is, imprisonment in a prison cell must be torture. Is it possible to adapt to prison life? And if so, how soon?

If you appreciate freedom, then never.

Do you regret stopping being a banker and starting an oil business?

No. I don’t. I’m happy at what we were able to do for the country in all those years working in Yukos.

Mr. Khodorkovsky, do you consider yourself a role-model for Russian youth? Is that something you aspire to?

I don’t think of myself as a role-model - that’s not what I’m after. Each person is unique and modelling yourself on someone else is not the best way develop your own personality. It’s more important for me to do my best for Russian youth in general, to open up its intellectual and creative potential. Russia’s most valuable resource is its young people - and their concern for the future of their country. That’s why I made it a priority to provide charity and social-support systems, and why in the future I plan to focus on social projects. I’m convinced that only by developing social and educational programmes can we halt the brain drain and get Russia to a new level.

Mikhail, what’s the reason for the brain drain and how can we stop it?

The main reason is government policy. You can’t just scare off successful and well-paid young people. They’re leaving because there’s a demand for them abroad, in more stable and better developed societies. If you want to keep people like this in Russia, then you have to show them a picture of the future and convince them that it’s achievable.

Looking back, how do you rate your achievements in Yukos?

I believed in what I was trying to do - to rebuild Russian industry. I think I could have done more, and done it better, but we got there with time. Now I understand that it’s both more difficult and more important to rebuild the society and the country. But it’s possible to do that too.

What do you think of the fact that the business-community simply walked away from you and no-one in power gave you any support?

I’m sorry it had to happen that way. If society can’t assert its own interests in its relationship with the government - as happens in evolved democracies - then the government can get away with anything.

What do you think ought to be done to help Russia become a democratic country with a market-driven economy?

Real efforts have to be made to support the public’s engagement with economic and civic issues. That will in turn give rise to people’s practical participation in the political and social life of the country. A rise in prosperity will create a true middle class - a prop for democracy - and improved material prospects will provide a ground-base for liberal attitudes. What we have to do is encourage investment and stimulate economic growth.

Haven’t you thought that Russian society might not be ready for the changes you’re after? In my view, Yukos made a mistake in going faster than any other company. That’s why the business community doesn’t support you.

I’ve thought about this question since 1998, when I made my business transparent, and especially since 2002, when I began to be involved in public life. My team and I went out ahead of the general drift, and thanks to it won in business. But when you’re involved in public life, it’s a lot more dangerous to go out in front of society in general. Still, somebody has to set an example. I only hope we didn’t go too far.

What do you need all this for? I live in America, and an American would say in a case like this: ‘I simply don’t belong here’. You’re in the same boat. You might just as well put a child prodigy into a class of mentally-handicapped children and then punish him for knowing too much. I know you love Russia, but it will take Russia two hundred years to appreciate the fact, unfortunately.

I can’t leave Russia. It’s my country. Whether it appreciates me or not, that doesn’t bother a lot. In any case, I’m determined to live and work here.

You used to say Yukos represented 90% of your fortune. Now that Yukos is bankrupt, you’re an ordinary citizen again. How do you feel about this?

I treat possessions with a lot less fondness than is generally thought. Of course Yukos was an important stage in my life. But my company wasn’t just a source of money. It was visible proof that you can exercise your rights and make the most of your abilities. The prospect of losing my property doesn’t frighten me. I’ll stop being a very rich person and become a well-off one.

I hope my professional experience and knowledge will always provide me with enough to live on. It’s easier to get inner freedom if you’re outside the cut-and-thrust of the business world. Besides I’ve long planned to involve myself in social projects, and my resignation from the chairmanship of Yukos hasn’t altered that.

How much money does Yukos give to charity?

The Menatep group and enterprises and organizations in Russia give $100 to $200 million a year.

Do you think that American oil companies connived in your case in a conspiracy with the Kremlin?

Above everything else, the Yukos case highlights the country’s chief domestic problems, such as the absence of an independent judiciary, the unbridled lawlessness of law-enforcement agencies and the insecurity of property rights etc. In this case, judicial prosecution is a cover for the achievement of goals a long, long way from any legal requirement. If you persist in looking for the guilty outside the country, if you go on trying to prove a ‘conspiracy of capitalist-imperialists’, then you’re being simple-minded and myopic. All Russia’s problems are internal ones - so it has to solve them on its own, taking into account its own experience and the experience of other countries.

Did your arrest come as an awful surprise or did you expect it? What did you feel when they arrested you at gunpoint?

It didn’t come as a complete surprise. There was a lot of tension in the air long before my arrest. I knew the situation could take a turn and that I could expect an attack on me and my company. But I still didn’t believe that the authorities would go that far and openly overstep all legality: arrest me and keep me in prison for no reason, in direct violation of the Constitution.