We are eye-witnesses to new history, being born today. At last our countrymen and countrywomen are starting to make this history. We are privileged to be in the epicenter of legendary events. It will be the first legend of Ukraine’s recent history. It will be the first legend worthy of our successors’ remembrance. It will be a legend, rather than a myth, of which there are plenty in the national chronicles.

All this may sound too high-flown, I agree. What happened? The run-off in the presidential elections was held. In form, one candidate won; the other candidate challenged the authenticity of this victory and appealed against the announced result in the Supreme Court. His supporters organized mass protest rallies all over the country. Each party is convinced it is right.

What is so singular about the current events in Ukraine? How is the 2004 “orange” revolution different from the mass demonstrations of late 1980s - early 1990s? Or from large-scale strikes in 1993? Or from the protests during the “tape scandal”? Isn’t it wishful thinking on the part of those who proclaim an impetuous and irreversible transformation from inhabitants into a nation?

At this juncture, hardly will anyone be able to answer the above questions in a neutral, impartial or dispassionate way, or to soberly construe the true meaning of today’s experience.

It is for the first time in Ukraine’s independent history that the whole nation is engaged in political actions. I do not mean their unprecedented depth and width. It is for the first time that a political issue managed to bring together so many dissimilar people. Flourishing

Taxi drivers giving free lifts to demonstrators from other cities and towns. Kyiv residents providing shelter to strangers. Managers of flourishing companies and pensioners with scarce resources buying toothbrushes and warm socks for the students living in the tent camp. Students skipping lectures to go to the meeting in spite of expulsion threats. Well-dressed men pushing out dirty buses from the snow along with “our guys”. Poorly-dressed women lying down in front of the wheels of buses with “their guys”, and bringing “their guys” hot tea and food afterwards. Girls giving flowers to policemen. Policemen refusing to turn against their compatriots. Pop and rock stars neglecting their contracts and performing live for several days in a row on a windy square. Quiet citizens, who never left their villages or towns, buying tickets to Kyiv with their meager savings. Civil servants daring to call their bosses’ illegitimate orders to question, despite their customary obedience. The nouveau riche shielding the tent camp from expected riot police attacks with their new cars, contrary to the general perception of them as caring for nothing but money. All this is the snow-covered, protesting, orange Kyiv of the autumn of 2004.

I would not want to idealize the situation. Yet I admire the people who have had the guts to participate in such a conscious, uncompromising and organized effort; the people determined to fight for their right to choose freedom. Too recklessly were their rights violated, too painful was the insult. The large scale of the falsification was evident to everyone with their eyes open.

The new feeling of self-esteem has eliminated, at least for the time being, differences between the rich and the poor, urban and rural residents, Ukrainian- and Russian-speakers, the Orthodox and Greek Catholics, “easterners” and “westerners”. Independence Square has turned into an anti-Babylon, whose people speak a common language, erecting the tent camp.

All the talk about money and tricks that have united hundreds of thousands, millions of people at the rally sound ridiculous and cynical. No ruses or dollars will be enough to bring together (and keep together in the cold, under the imminent threat of the use of force) so many people. Scheming and bribes can buy posts in power, but not people’s trust.

And what about the other segment of the voters, those who wear other colours and support the other candidate? Isn’t their right to a free choice sacred?

Of course, it is. Yet the irony of the situation is that the voters’ free will and choice (according to numerous reliable sources) were most outrageously distorted in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, where Yanukovych did, indeed, enjoy the greatest support. Yet great does not mean absolute. By the same token, Yushchenko could not have won absolute support in Sumy or Rivne oblasts. Therefore, the authorities’ rude interference in the people’s choice-making in those regions was particularly repulsive.

I believe most people in the Independence Square have stood up not so much for Viktor Yushchenko as for their trampled rights. A week ago, I would have never thought it possible for so many people to feel and act like that. Today I think these people will be ready to defend their rights whenever and wherever necessary, regardless of who might infringe on their rights - Yanukovych or Yushchenko, Kuchma or Tymoshenko, Medvedchuk or Poroshenko, Ivanov or Smith. It means we will be able to build a dignified and respected country, no matter who will be our president.

Two days ago I observed an amazing episode. An emotional babushka was citing a detailed list of Yushchenko’s shortcomings to a young man in orange. The young man was surprisingly composed and sensible for a person of his age: “You don’t like Yushchenko? OK! I like him. He may fall short of my expectations, in which case I’ll vote for another candidate in five years from now. But if Yanukovych wins, it will mean somebody else voted instead of me and a lot of others. And this somebody else did not ask me if I like him or of he lived up to my expectations”.

I hope the people in the “orange” street are safeguarding their right to a free choice. Moreover, I hope they are doing so not only for their own sake, but for the sake of those in the “blue-and-white” street as well, since the Donbass residents’ right was equally disrespected. The envoys from this coal-mining region (as far as I could judge from my conversations with them) have come to Kyiv in order to defend their candidate, out of regional patriotism. Yet they looked totally blind to the dishonest means their former regional leader used to secure his dubious victory.

And there is one more thing, which could seem unpleasant to some people, but it is true: the “orange” come to the square of their own free will, whereas the “blue-and-white” are brought there…

Will this crack in society (designed by politicians, organized by spin doctors and set off by journalists) break the country? Is Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn exaggerating when he says Ukraine’s territorial integrity is in jeopardy? Should we pay heed to the claims about Eastern oblasts’ autonomy?

These are tough questions, especially in view of the present confrontation. I believe, however, that the threat today is not as grave as it was yesterday. “Their guys” have not turned into the enemies of “our guys.” Nor has the protest grown into hatred. It is another aspect of our history “made in the street”. Flowers decorating riot police shields, food and clothes that the “orange” share with the cold and hungry “blue-and-white”, and the absence of violent incidents encourage optimism. The people have shown wonderful wisdom. Now the ball is on the politicians’ field - peace in the streets of this European country, and in its citizens’ hearts, depends on the politicians’ wisdom.

I remember all the Ukrainian elections as far back as 1990. I also remember all the mass rallies that have taken place in the capital city since then - ranging from the march of the Rukh constituent assembly participants to the meetings within the “Rise, Ukraine!” movement. Yet never before have I seen so many smiling faces and radiant eyes.

Will the “Our Ukraine” leader (should he win) justify the hopes pinned on him? In my opinion, “Yushchenko” is a slogan on the winner’s banner. This winner is the nation. Viktor Yushchenko is the happy recipient of an enormous credit of public trust. He will need all his strength and talent to pay off this credit.

At the same time, Yushchenko is not a fetish for an irrational crowd, as some prefer to believe. He is a possible conduit for people’s hopes. Our citizens, eager for respect for their human dignity, view him as a politician capable of changing their attitude to the authorities. To live up to this trust is a great honour and moral duty.

In 1999, a right-wing politician named Stepan Khmara backed up his leftist opponent Olexander Moroz. When asked about the reasons for his pick, he replied: “I will oppose him as soon as he wins. But I will be fighting for his victory, because I am sure that under President Moroz the opposition will be able to censure the authorities with no fear of being persecuted”.

I can say the same about Viktor Yushchenko, even though I have a number of questions to ask of him, as a voter, citizen and journalist. I have never concealed my critical attitude to some of his words and deeds. Today, I do not conceal my preparedness to fight for his right to win the elections, validated by millions of people. I will also fight for my right to oppose him, in case he fails to live up to these people’s trust.

I will venture a guess that the opposition counted on popular support but did not expect it to be so massive, full-hearted and genuine. It was one of the reasons (along with the usual mess in the opposition’s organizational work) why at first there was shortage of food, warm clothing and medicines supplied to the tent campers. The situation was remedied when Kyiv residents volunteered help. The mid-management team within the opposition - Roman Bezsmertny, Volodymyr Filenko, Taras Stetskiv, Yuriy Lutsenko and Mykola Tomenko - did a lot to streamline procedures in the camp. These five wardens of Independence Square and the tent camp must last have had a rest before voting day. Three of the former have shouldered responsibility for logistics, the two latter are hosts of the round-the-clock public meeting that began on 22 November.

My other guess is that Yushchenko’s team had a mass rally on its agenda from the start. The team had no illusions as to the likely ballot-rigging, and geared up to struggle for victory. They must have been fully aware that the maximum possible number of backers would boost their chances to reach victory. What surprises me, though, is that Yushchenko’s fairly professional crew could not offer an adequate resistance to ballot rigging. They should not blame all of it on the authoritarian regime. They had ample time and resources to select and train election commissioners, brief observers and ensure the security of ballot-boxes, ballots and minutes of the district and territorial election commissions, at least in the regions where the population was sympathetic to Yushchenko and the local governments did not harass his representatives.

Anticipating the authorities’ brutality, the opposition, nevertheless, proved unprepared to strike back. It hoped for the massive support of the population, but having mobilized this support, it seemed hesitant as to how to use it. I may be wrong, but my impression was that the HQ had no clear action plan at hand.

If Yushchenko wins after all, he will owe it to the people’s enthusiasm rather than to his team’s strategy and tactics. The people’s staunchness gave his team some breathing space and time to clear up confusion.

Over the campaign period, Yushchenko has gained a lot as a politician. These last days have transformed him into a true leader. May he be a noble leader of a nation aware of its power.

Ukraine has been awaiting this day since 1991, when independence fell to the people’s feet as an overripe fruit from a dried tree. At that time we were not ready to digest it. An unexpected freedom was a free cheese that lured us into the mousetrap of disappointment. The dream looked too accessible and easy to implement. The number of sincere dreamers was too small. There were too few new heroes to form a new type of elite. The same old people kept their offices, having only modified their rhetoric a bit.

We got a new state, with all the relevant attributes: President and Constitution, flag and hymn, Armed Forces and diplomatic missions all over the world. Ukraine had what it took to become a state. Yet it proved insufficient to become a nation.

Perhaps the Kuchma era has been a cross we had to carry, a belated test for durability. We have been bearing this burden conscientiously for a decade. Some have been doing it resignedly, others have tried to drop it. We have stood this test to be rewarded with a new generation of people.

We do not want to be disillusioned again. Yet even if it happens, today’s events will be remembered by generations to come.