http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14gorbachev.html?th&emc=th
/.../
Our main mistake was acting too late to reform the Communist Party. The party had initiated perestroika, but it soon became a hindrance to our moving forward. The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 1991, which scuttled the reforms.

We also acted too late in reforming the union of the republics, which had come a long way during their common existence. They had become real states, with their own economies and their own elites. We needed to find a way for them to exist as sovereign states within a decentralized democratic union. In a nationwide referendum of March 1991, more than 70 percent of voters supported the idea of a new union of sovereign republics. But the coup attempt that August, which weakened my position as president, made that prospect impossible. By the end of the year, the Soviet Union no longer existed.
/.../
I understood that in a situation where the very existence of the Russian state was at stake, it was not always possible to act “by the book.” Decisive, tough measures and even elements of authoritarianism may be needed at such times. That is why I supported the steps taken by Mr. Putin during his first term as president. I was not alone — 70 percent to 80 percent of the population supported him in those days.

Nevertheless, stabilizing the country cannot be the only or the final goal. Russia needs development and modernization to become a leader in an interdependent world. Our country has not moved closer to that goal in the past few years, even though for a decade we have benefited from high prices for our main exports, oil and gas. The global crisis has hit Russia harder than many other countries, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Russia will progress with confidence only if it follows a democratic path. Recently, there have been a number of setbacks in this regard.

For instance, all major decisions are now taken by the executive branch, with the Parliament rubber-stamping formal approval. The independence of the courts has been thrown into question. We do not have a party system that would enable a real majority to win while also taking the minority opinion into account and allowing an active opposition. There is a growing feeling that the government is afraid of civil society and would like to control everything.

We’ve been there, done that. Do we want to go back? I don’t think anyone does, including our leaders.
/... ./

The meaning of this cut and paste eludes me. Help!

What part of “obvious” don’t you get?  Must be that you are you in so much agreement with Gorbachev that you don’t even notice his ghastly view about “reforming the union of the republics, which had come a long way during their common existence. They had become real states ...” Too bad that “union” failed, huh? 

Our main mistake was acting too late to reform the Communist Party. The party had initiated perestroika, but it soon became a hindrance to our moving forward. The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 1991, which scuttled the reforms.

We also acted too late in reforming the union of the republics, which had come a long way during their common existence. They had become real states, with their own economies and their own elites. We needed to find a way for them to exist as sovereign states within a decentralized democratic union. In a nationwide referendum of March 1991, more than 70 percent of voters supported the idea of a new union of sovereign republics [my bold for Aleksejs]. But the coup attempt that August, which weakened my position as president, made that prospect impossible. By the end of the year, the Soviet Union no longer existed [what a tragedy, as Putin says].

Er, and what does that have to do with Latvia’s crumbling economy and huge unemployment? Or let me rephrase that what does an op-ed by a former politician who has left power 19 years ago and has a following of about 2 percent of the Russian population - what does he have to do with Latvia today?

Aleksejs et al.,

“Or let me rephrase that what does an op-ed by a former politician who has left power 19 years ago and has a following of about 2 percent of the Russian population - what does he have to do with Latvia today? “

A lot of postings here have nothing to do with Latvia today.  And if you think of Gorbachev as just a former politician,—well then you just do not get it.  Just as you do not get it about March 16.  What planet are you living on ?

Visu labu,

If Aleks would grant me leave from his point regarding Gorbachev being irrelevant as far as current day Latvia is concerned - given that Gorbachev is and has been totally irrelevant for 20+ years now. It’s somewhat funny in that some Russians regard Gorbi’s complementing of Putin with great suspicion. If Gorbi thinks its right - in general the thinking is that Putin’s doing something wrong.

Gorbi’s “I gave reform the old college try” blathering is purely self serving. Gorbi has no chance of having a positive legacy in Russia so he’ll try and create one in the NYT.

Gorbi’s reforms were on their way down in 1987-88 when local limited autonomist movements were gaining traction within the Republics. Read “Gorbachev’s failure in Lithuania” by A.E.Senn.  Gorbachev didnt respond at all to the Republics. Gorbachev’s visit to Vilnius in 1990 was a total failure - not because he didnt have at least some authority left but because he totally misunderstood the issue. In addition, Gorbi was comforted by the US’s encouragement of the independence movements to moderate and not cause Moscow trouble. Gorbi thought that the saber rattling and frankly very painful economic blockade would bring the Republics back in line. He had no intention of allowing the Republics to become internal states. He did everything he could to prevent that.

Bruno et al,

Perhaps, you’re not familiar with today’s Russia. Gorby while praised by the West is not at all popular in Russia, nor does his word carry significant weight to matter in the political discourse. He is a has-been. And why wouldn’t he be if economically perestroika was devastating for most people.

Aleksejs et al.,

“Perhaps, you’re not familiar with today’s Russia. Gorby while praised by the West is not at all popular in Russia, nor does his word carry significant weight to matter in the political discourse. He is a has-been. And why wouldn’t he be if economically perestroika was devastating for most people. “

Gorbachev is an important historical figure.  A living important historical figure.  In Russia they would have problems rewriting history without depicting Gorbachev as a has-been.  I do not care for him, but that does not mean he was not an important historical figure.

Visu labu,

A has-been means a historical figure, Bruno, a figure of the past. No one denies his importance then. I’m saying he is not important now.

Aleksejs et al.,

“I’m saying he is not important now. “

I think you meant popular.

Visu labu,

Bruno et al.,

“I’m saying he is not important now. “

“I think you meant popular.”

I think a politician’s importance is tied to his popularity or his power. Gorbachev has neither.

Vsego horoshego,

Aleksejs et al.,

” think a politician’s importance is tied to his popularity or his power. Gorbachev has neither. “.

I do not think of Gorbachev as a politician, but then I do not live in Russia either

Visu labu,