According to Roman Kukharuk from the Baltic Research Center, the orange revolution revealed many positive trends, including the unity of the people, the strive towards democracy and freedom of choice. On the negative side was open support to both rivals by some bureaucrats, corruption, and the Russian imperialistic policy. Two factors that caused the revolution were the fear of Yanukovitch and the mobilization of the real middle class (composed of adults between 30 and 40), intensified by considerable Western financial support and Russian foreign policy failures toward Ukraine. It was clear from the start that Yanukovich was the candidate who did not enjoy popular support and was a fear factor for many in Ukraine. The support provided to the revolutionary events by the middle class would have been impossible in the climate of social and economic turbulence of the 1990s.

Outgoing President Kutchma's legacy, as well as those of some of today's Central Asian leaders, can be characterized by an absence of rules of the game, under-the-carpet violence, a lack of transparency in political and ecnomic processes, and corrupted elites. The Yuschenko administration thus faces high expectations from Ukrainian citizens to end these problems while also making strategic choices on national security issues, national and ethnic issues, and advancing good governance. In sum, new leaders in Ukraine are associated with serious changes in political climate, as well as fast advancement of the social and economic status of the population's majority, including poverty aleviation. It is always difficult to deliver on high expectations and success will still depend heavily on the EU, the US, and Russia. The EU has promised provide allocation of approximately US$128 million in assistance to Ukraine, and the United States has made similar promises. Russian businesses, meanwhile, are looking forward to investing in Ukraine's energy industry and addressing concerns of the pro-Russian population in Eastern Ukraine.

Another reason why the revolution in Ukraine, was so appealing to common citizens was the gender composition of the new leadership - in both countries there was a man and a woman (Yuschenko and Timoshenko) leading the revolution hand in hand, even playing off of each other and assuming "good-cop, bad-cop" roles from time to time. Besides the gender perspective, both countries showed unprecedented activism from youth (notably the "PORA" movement), managing to win over an age group typically apathetic towards the political process. This strategy helped to engage and rely on larger segments of society, as well as to attract more supporters and electorate from various social and gender groups.

Although Georgia was the pioneer of the post-Soviet space in its arrangement of the "Revolution of Roses", it is Ukraine which has made itself the symbol of the new wave of revolutions. Today, more than one year after the change of regime in Georgia, some analysts say that some important democratic values have not yet been realized. Often cited are the almost complete absence of criticism toward the Saakashvili Government on national TV channels and the continuing extreme poverty of the majority of citizens.

The revolution in Kyrgyz Republic is in many ways an exception to the rule seen in Ukraine. The events in Kyrgyz Republic did not happen in a peaceful way and did not divide the population by national or ideological cleavages. Militia, businessmen, and commoners, young people and respected elders (aksakals), Tajik minority and Kyrgyz majority, all joined forces to overthrow the old political regime. However, as happened in Ukraine, one family and business group substituted another. Also like in Ukraine, one of their first steps has been to seek support and dialogue with their population.

Ukraine demonstrated that countries that suffer from poverty, corruption, and a considerable communication gap between political leaders and their populations are ripe for revolution. The same means by which peaceful revolutions of all colors are made should also be utilized to prevent these revolutions from being necessary in the first place; namely, the principles of active involvement of all sectors of society in political debates and actions, open governmental action, and, finally, good governance. These principles, despite being difficult to adhere to despite their straightforwardness, were tested in several countries of the post-Soviet space against rough political technologies and assured the victory for new leaders. It is not evident that the new leaders will meet the high expectations of their citizens and the international community, but they are well-positioned to improve their nations' plights.