Ukrainians haven't fully grasped all the lessons from the Maidan and the Revolution of Dignity.

Twenty years ago, on November 22, 2004, a new chapter in Ukraine's history began. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kyiv to change the direction of their country. Today, for many, this event is remembered not merely as a political struggle between two candidates, but as an almost biblical tale of light triumphing over darkness. The fact that the protests commenced on St. Michael's Day, celebrated on November 21, gave everyone confidence that we were indeed on the right side.

In 2004, Ukrainians demonstrated unexpected maturity. They did not treat the elections as a game. They did not view it as a show and did not sell out. They understood that presidential elections were an opportunity to change the country's life. They believed they had a direct impact when they took their voting ballots.

If we speak today of Maidan as a milestone in nation-building, it is largely due to the political maturity displayed at that time. It was the first test to become a separate free country, rather than a province of Russia. And Ukrainians passed that test successfully.

Together, we won honestly. Without violence and mass casualties. Thanks to unity. Everyone displayed their best qualities then – resilience, responsibility for their choices, and readiness to defend them. All believed in values, procedures, and rules. That is why solutions were found by politicians, diplomats, and lawyers, not by special police units or the army, which some suggested be directed against their own people. We perceived this story as a definitive victory. It was supposed to pave a direct path to democracy, where honest elections would always be held; to economic prosperity and recognition of Ukraine as an independent European state.

Indeed, Maidan changed Ukraine. The world learned that we are not Russia. Ukraine inspired admiration. We saw a fourfold increase in foreign investments in 2005; became the first post-Soviet country recognized by Freedom House as fully free. We transitioned to a market economy, which allowed us to join the World Trade Organization. The global index indicated the highest levels of economic freedom at that time, which undoubtedly enabled the national business to stand on its own feet.

Many seek to evaluate this period using economic parameters to prove the advantages of democracy and national revival. And although these were the best years for Ukraine's economic development, the Orange Revolution was not an economic movement. Its most significant consequences were the revival of national identity and the strengthening of democracy. Only now can we assess the role these two policies played in saving our country twenty years later. And only after that did they gain acceptance in society. After Maidan, the largest initiatives to restore national memory, respect for our own history, and return forgotten and forbidden names began. We must be honest that these projects had support from the patriotic cultural elite. But overall, there was much misunderstanding, devaluation, sabotage, and resistance. Even the commemoration of the national tragedy of the Holodomor could not fully consolidate the nation.

However, these are precisely the projects that mattered most and yielded the greatest long-term results. The policy of national memory is not just a different course in history, where unknown names emerge from oblivion. It is not merely the coming of the Ministry of Culture or the Academy of Sciences. It is a chance for the nation to remember itself. To identify itself today. This is a significant strategic issue that was ignored twenty to fifteen years ago and traded for other values.

In Ukraine, the policies of decommunization and derussification continue. In 2022, during the war, nearly 10,000 toponyms were renamed and 145 monuments were dismantled: 28 monuments to Pushkin, 4 to the Russian general Alexander Suvorov, 4 to the Soviet writer Nikolai Ostrovsky, 9 to Maxim Gorky, and 1 to the Russian empress Catherine II. After accounting for all political mistakes, based on new legislation, this was supposed to finally conclude in 2024. But the process is still ongoing. As of December 2014, since the beginning of the year, 504 Lenin monuments have been toppled in Ukraine. This was after the Revolution of Dignity, the annexation of Crimea, and the proclamation of the DPR-LPR.

What more can measure the depth of Russian communist occupation?

I do not want to speculate. But in recent days, terrible shelling has occurred in Odessa, resulting in dozens of deaths. The monument to Pushkin stands as a witness to these events, defended by the local community.

The decommunization was supposed to occur under the president's decree from 2007, when all mentions of those involved in the famines and political repressions during the Soviet era were to be removed. Many local "executors" did not understand why this was necessary and waited it out. The 2007 decree had another important point – the global recognition of the Holodomor as genocide against the Ukrainian people, particularly by the United Nations General Assembly and the European Parliament.

Today, as war rages in Ukraine, Russia is again committing genocide, openly discussed on television. This is an international crime. But international justice moves very slowly. Intent must be proven to hold Putin accountable for the crime of genocide. At least a hundred years of Ukrainian history could be presented in such a court to demonstrate Russia's intent to continue the genocide of Ukrainians. On December 15, 2022, the European Parliament supported a resolution recognizing the Holodomor of 1932-1933 as genocide against the Ukrainian people. It took 15 years, another revolution in Ukraine, and a great war.

By this, I want to say that the policy of national memory was neglected by Ukrainians and misunderstood by our Western partners. Maidan and the Revolution of Dignity offered immense opportunities to bring about significant changes, learn from historical lessons, and return the Ukrainians their identity – an understanding of their true selves.

This process has now unfolded with unprecedented strength. And again, it is driven not only by a strong interest in national culture but also by a sense of enlightenment and guilt for lost time and credulity to foreign narratives. We are experiencing a national revival, but at the same time, on the front lines, we are losing our young elite – poets, scientists, musicians, and community leaders.

Reflecting on the presidency, I often heard the accusation that the president took on the role of Minister of Culture. But I always understood that national policy for Ukraine is a matter of security, and I was right. When you create a new museum, you are actually defending the state border. When you erect a monument, you affirm that Ukraine is a state with a thousand-year history, not some "Lenin project," as the Russians mock. In the long term, my logic proved correct, even though 15 years ago, no one wanted to hear it.

Today, as Russia destroys Ukrainian typography in Kharkiv, it explains to many why culture is so important. And there are no longer any doubts about who caused the Great Famine-Genocide, and there is no forgiveness or reconciliation with them.

"Russia exists where the Russian language is present." This slogan gives a mandate to Russian soldiers to come and "liberate" the territories of any country where Russian speakers reside. This is how the hybrid Russian war looks. That is why it is crucial for us to continue building a strong identity so that no one calls for the Russian soldier's help after watching Russian television and movies. This is why language protects state sovereignty. This was the test that much of the nation failed at that time. Not all – but in broad circles, these issues were considered secondary; Ukrainian culture was seen as provincial; history was deemed too complex and a distant topic.

Understanding what true Russia is – this is another delayed lesson after Maidan.

2004 changed Ukraine. But Russia also began to change. This conflict evolved not only into a confrontation between presidential candidates. Not just a clash of values between Maidan and Antimaidan. From this moment, a conflict arose between two visions for the future and two systems. We chose the path toward freedom and the dignity of each individual. Russia began a reverse movement from the restoration of Tsarism to Stalinism and the division of the world. Only those who understood the logic of Ukraine's and Russia's history could anticipate that a decade of war lay ahead. Few people in Ukrainian politics took the predictions of a Russian-Soviet revival and the rapid spread of restorative nostalgia in Russia seriously.

This lesson is not only for Ukraine. In 2004, Russia openly intervened in Ukraine's presidential elections. And these were not the last elections when Russia promoted its candidates, parties, provided them with air time on television, and political advisors. Today, Russia does this worldwide, including in the most stable democracies. Russia has now become the greatest threat to security in Europe and to the European way of life as a whole. It openly opposes the West and challenges Western values. This is acknowledged in numerous analytical reports and is essentially included in new European Union security strategies.

In 2008, during Russia's attack on Georgia, it was clear which country would be next. How many Ukrainian politicians and what percentage of Ukrainians considered Russia a threat at that time? Look at what is happening to Georgia, which was such an inspiring example for Ukraine? How has Georgia paid for its unlearned lessons from democratic revolutions? If in 2008 NATO had invited both countries to the Membership Action Plan, the history of not just these two countries but also the agenda for