The development of glasnost, freedoms of speech, democracy and the structures of civil society gives hope. Orange revolution became a catalyst, and these processes would have taken decades without it. Take it or leave it, but everything would have stuck without it.

The Ukrainian state, for independence of which we fought, takes little, if any, interest in its population; it is preoccupied with servicing oligarchic clans. Seizing and controlling power is the only attraction—neither rural economy, nor utilities, nor power carriers.

Only through misunderstanding we can call our financial affairs an economy. Actually this is an economic phantom, with figures, facts, budget, and other semblances.

The parasitic smugness is a commonplace with our nation, whole the top brass prefers the Franko`s slogan: “Everything—for friends and the law—for enemies.” And what about the civil society?

Western data show the rating going down in the first months of the presidency; however, everybody is patient enough to abstain from declarations about the trust slump. I think it would be more constructive to look for the ways to the trust stabilization to the president and the government; it is better than speak of the slump; besides, opinion polls show nothing of the kind.

The Maidan is a civil movement in the first place, the manifestation of deep qualitative changes in the society. In this sense it is of independent value; therefore, be what it may with the top administration, it will take a parallel route and its value will persist.

Today the Maidan is far down the list of the national pride priorities of our compatriots. Current motto is: “Get rich!” The question is whether it can unite our society.

The Maidan cannot be considered as a kind of voluntaristic action or response to unjust elections. I consider it a prognosticative event of historical making of Ukraine in the form of a bourgeois revolution

A chronically sick society needs long-term therapy. Having had patience in the time of social and administrative degradation, the citizens should stay within reason now and shouldn’t want everything here and now. Alas, such impatience is a common post-revolutionary syndrome.

Such commotion can be set up once per 10 to 15 years only, so that there is time enough for the new generation of young bigots to appear who do not remember past disappointments. Accordingly, the next revolutionary cycle will take place not earlier, than in ten years.

For young people the Maidan became a new school of disappointment, which any generation must pass through. Young people have outlived their youngish illusions about the possibility of quickly changing something for the better with a kind of mass rallies.

Last year events may be called a kind of psychological revolution. It generated new relations in the country. These are relations of plurality. Relations between the authorities and society have changed. However, relations in the community and between an individual and public administration remained the same.

The Maidan, in the broad sense of the word, intended to lead Yushchenko to power, but the main priority was changing relations in the state. It went to no purpose: there was a primitive reshuffle and the system continued on its tracks.

The majority of Ukrainians became tired of the former power. Not even a headache: they simply got tired. It was the main motive attracting people to Maidan. The Maidan wanted to fix the procedure of elections as a legitimate method of rotation of elites.

There is a danger of authoritarianism if the confidence in authority is high, and mutual trust in a community is low. In this sense Ukraine has suffered certain political losses. We talked a lot about the birth of political nation and new political culture; however, there are more questions, than positivism in it. I have seen a serious spread of baseless Bolshevik slogans.

People went to the Maidan so that Yushchenko could lead the country to democracy and Europe, and the victory in presidential elections is but a first step to a real victory. It may well happen that in the context of political reform we will lose the achievements of Maidan.

The Orange Revolution made the new administration to be as good as its word and fulfill the demands of Maidan, but there was no good in it.

Is GDP rate falling? In comparison with the former fictions they could not but fall. Inefficient administration? Such inefficiency is better than the re-allocation of monetary flows in the times from Lazarenko to Yanukovych. Naive President? But it is better than his hysterical and unforgiving predecessor. Therefore we’d better quit talking about disappointments: there is a sufficient reward in our real gains plus potential gains.

Current disappointment may be positive and correct; however inefficient politicians and not Maidan should be accredited with it. It is good that we become disappointed with politicians, because we should idolize nobody. People came to criticize Yushchenko and it shows that our nation is socially healthy.

Step by step Ukrainian population is becoming political nation, because feeling of social and national responsibility is a priority modus of any political nation; at long last Ukrainians assumed the responsibility for their country.

The manifestation of national protest is a holistic artistic creation about revolution. However it is high time to understand that our nation lives in parallel worlds with the authorities.

Our country can not return to Kuchma-style authoritarianism, because, firstly, the impetus of the Square was too big, secondly, Yushchenko is not like Kuchma, and thirdly, the constitutional reform will create utterly new political landscape.

Till now no revolution has prioritized justice and freedom as merits. It is a typical event for the spirituality of the early 21st c.