By Mikhail Khodorkovsky

The New York Times

SEGEZHA, Russia — Ten years have gone by, 10 years — to the day — that I have spent in the jails, prisons and camps of the new Russia.

Much has changed. My oldest son now has his own baby daughter, who is not a baby any more — my first grandchild, whom I have never seen.

My youngest sons, whom I left as little four-year-old boys, are now taller than I am and on the threshold of adulthood. My daughter is close to graduating from college. My wife, who has been supporting me all these years, is alone at home now. My parents are already very old, and their health leaves much to be desired.

The whole world has changed a great deal as well. I can only read in magazines about e-book readers and tablet computers. The same goes for Facebook, Google, Twitter and many other things that are now commonplace, like hybrid engines and electric cars.

My family tells me that I also would not recognize Moscow: Many new buildings have gone up, and people look different, less Soviet.

Against the background of these changes, my world is practically standing still: There is little difference between the camp barracks on the Chinese border where I spent the first part of my term and my current barracks on the Finnish border. The people are also pretty much the same: Each has his own thoughts and his own unhappy fate.

But despite all the years that have passed, I have never become a part of this closed system, and I continue to live by the events taking place in Russia and the world. They reach me by way of newspapers and endless letters and the stories told by the people who are constantly coming in “from the outside.”

I have watched as my country has prospered from rising oil and gas prices. People’s incomes have increased significantly as well.

But the prices of goods and housing have also soared. Life in many Russian cities is now more expensive than in the United States or Europe.

The reasons are well known: state monopolism, corruption and inefficient administration, a consequence of the implacability of power and its excessive centralization in the hands of a single executive.

Many talented people are leaving the country; more than 2 million Russians have gone in just 10 years. The capital flight that started in 2008 stands at $350 billion and counting. Three million entrepreneurs have been subjected to criminal prosecution, and some of them, like Sergei L. Magnitsky and Vasily G. Aleksanyan, have died as a result of being in prison.

This is the reason why there is so little innovation in Russia, and why dependence on raw materials prices is rising while the overall growth rate is slowing. The quality of education is decreasing, while industry is falling technologically further behind the West, and now even China.

Russia’s place in the world has likewise changed. Our country, having become richer as a result of the raw materials boom, has begun playing a more active role in the global arena: recall its recent diplomatic successes in the Middle East and the multitude of recent and upcoming global political forums, economic meetings and sporting events held here.

Unfortunately, the prestige that comes with such success has been erased by events like the imprisonment of the women from the band Pussy Riot, the recent, inappropriate arrest of Greenpeace ecologists and the ban on adoptions by Americans.

The reason for each of these events is the same: An irremovable and out-of-control central power is losing the ability to adapt to an ever-more-changing world. It is incapable of offering an attractive vision for the future, a paradigm that might inspire people to follow it. This is why all the money, all the global-outreach efforts, all the technical achievements have no effect. A frozen and stiff society offers no hope for the young.

This is nothing new. Fearfully withdrawing into one’s shell is the usual reaction of people who lack sufficient ability to adapt (or who are afraid to display such ability). The interests, and even the fears, of such sufferers certainly have to be taken into account, but following them can only lead into the abyss.

Today the system for running the country is called “Vladimir V. Putin.” Can he change? I don’t want to give a categorical answer: A human being is too complicated a creature for that. But the chances are slim, as are the chances that Mr. Putin’s inner circle would allow him to cede his presidential powers, even temporarily, a second time. He will not control what follows him.

Inside the country, the number of supporters for a democratic transformation of power beyond the Putin regime is decreasing, while radical moods are slowly but surely increasing — something that will inevitably give rise to just as radical a leader in a crisis. Put differently, no matter what Mr. Putin does, Russia runs the risk of seeing another authoritarian regime follow his.

When a regime that has unknowingly entered a stage of irreversible degeneration, and is highly reluctant to give its opponents the space for real political competition, the only hope for change lies in the success of a broad-based, peaceful protest movement.

Such a movement does exist in Russia, and its goal is to force the rational part of the ruling elite to negotiate over the direction and speed of necessary reforms. Not just to listen condescendingly, but to actually negotiate and undertake the agreed-upon actions.

Unfortunately, there is never such a thing as peaceful protest without victims. Today there are many, many political activists and sympathizers in jail or on their way. This includes not just the 27 activists arrested during a recent, enormous protest in Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square, but dozens of other lower-profile cases as well. And there will probably be many more of these if the regime continues to respond with force to the voices of independent opponents.

But the opposition will achieve victory if it can turn each case around and put the regime on trial. Society, especially the youth, is keenly aware of the difference between words and deeds. And unlike violent protest, peaceful protest cannot backfire and push frightened ordinary citizens and moderate political forces into the arms of the regime.

What should the opposition do if it achieves its goals? Above all it must remember that, once victory is achieved, it is very important not only to overcome the desire to seek revenge against yesterday’s persecutors, but also to give them an opportunity to participate in determining the country’s course.

Second, it must recognize the need to compromise in the struggle for change. Historical experience teaches us that society has been able to get itself out of a tailspin with minimal losses only in those places where reformers found the strength and courage to reach a consensus with their opponents. The opposition must be influential! Without this there can be no democracy!

The movement must take inspiration from Nelson Mandela of South Africa, who was able to rise above personal grievances and racial and class prejudices to lead his society along a difficult road from civil war to social peace. Mr. Mandela’s genius lies in the fact that when he came out of jail, instead of shutting the door in the face of his jailers, he left it open, so they could come out together with him.

Vengeance cannot be recognized as a worthy and socially significant objective. Only the achievement of a national consensus will give Russia a chance at survival. But this consensus has to be achieved on a foundation of respect for the rights of each person and of each minority in that society. It is imperative to acknowledge the principles of a law-based state and an aspiration for social justice.

Russia has things it can offer the world. We are not Asia, and not even Eurasia, but an inseparable part of Europe. The same Europe that not only created today’s civilization, but also continues to be the world’s leading political laboratory for testing new social and ethical approaches, which are then adapted and implemented around the world.

But Europe faces a multipronged crisis: Its rate of scientific and technical progress is insufficient to ensure economic support for the higher-than-anticipated increase in the cost of the social welfare state, while European society has overestimated its ability to integrate diverse populations. And the idea of a postindustrial economy has been interpreted to mean the rejection of all industry, and not the creation of new types of industry.

This crisis has adversely affected the course of the European integration process, which itself represents a huge sociocultural experiment.

But a crisis — even a multifaceted one like this — by no means signifies a collapse. Today’s European crisis is a challenge, but also a powerful impetus for change. The contours of such changes can already be seen, though a long and complex road lies ahead.

Thanks to a cultural and historical affinity and territorial proximity, Russia is capable of being a part of this solution, by lending its experience at handling a gigantic territory and diverse economic and cultural patterns. Russia and Europe need to find ways to work together, much more closely than ever before.

Yes, such a change would require a serious new effort from the Euro-Atlantic civilization. First in terms of personnel, and second in terms of technology and innovation. We would be talking about hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs and specialists, about a gigantic splash of energy from a new generation of Europeans onto huge, and thus far poorly developed, expanses, about joint work, about a new Europe — from the Atlantic all the way to the Pacific.

For our people — the Russian people — this would become a real opportunity to overcome a situation that has existed since the 17th century, and to bridge the gap that has formed between the limited number of Russians who have a notion of modern Europe and live by its standards, and the rest of the country’s population, the many millions whose dream of a better life has been unscrupulously exploited for centuries by politicians who continue to preach a nonexistent “special way” for Russia that only leads people deeper into misery.

Today, against the background of ongoing migrations into Europe and ongoing change in Asia, the split between Europe and Russia is a gap that can lead to extremely unfavourable consequences. The disastrous project of stagnation needs an ambitious European alternative.

Change or be destroyed: This has been the historical choice for any human civilization for thousands of years.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky is an inmate at Penal Colony No. 7 in Karelia, in northwestern Russia. Before his arrest in 2003, he was the head of the Yukos oil company.