Today, Ukrainian families are taking tours across the gigantic residence of the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, a long-standing symbol of greed and unprecedented corruption. The feeling of victory is overwhelming on the streets of Kiev. The dictator has fled, his party is falling apart, and Kiev is finally free of armed police. But the blood is still fresh on the pavement of Independence Square. More than 100 people lost their lives in the many months of protests.

“You cannot leave this square until all your goals are met,” proclaimed Yulia Tymoshenko, Yanukovych’s jailed political opponent who was released from jail the day he fled.

I couldn’t agree more. Much work remains for Ukraine in the political, economic, territorial, and international spheres.

Politically, the situation remains uncertain. Before firing Yanukovych on Saturday, the Parliament voted for a return to the 2004 Constitution that shifts the balance of power toward parliament rather than the president. Unfortunately the parliament is very fragmented, consisting of five major parties and a large group of independent deputies. Gathering a coalition to nominate the Cabinet of Ministers is a big challenge, but keeping the coalition stable enough to vote for unpopular but needed reforms is even a bigger one.

Another critical political challenge is the successful integration of civil protest leaders into a fully functional democratic government. The recent victory is not only a victory against a dictator but also a victory of Ukrainian civil society. Surprisingly, the protests in Kiev began as decentralized and spontaneous uprisings. Only after months of protests did the new influential groups like Automaidan, Pravij Sektor, and Democratic Alliance emerge as the backbone and fists of the revolution.

But not getting these new leaders into the government allows for the possibility that this victory will turn out to be a mere facelift. As of today, only presidential elections were announced for May. Parliamentary elections are planned only for 2017, and if the elections are not held sooner, those new civil leaders will not be integrated. This should be done as soon as possible.

At the same time, the Ukrainian economy is in its worst shape since 2008 and significant challenges remain ahead. The hryvnia has sunk over 10 percent since the beginning of the protests and the unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. The economy needs structural reforms like tax reform, pension reform, transparent privatization, deregulation, better budget management, and gas market liberalization.

Such reforms are possible only with a stable coalition and political will in the Parliament. Financial support from the IMF is another crucial element to financial reforms, which can only happen in a stable democracy.

Some are questioning whether Ukraine would be able to hold itself in the current borders, or whether it will split along ethnic and political lines. Over the course of my life, I have worked, studied, and lived in most of the main Ukrainian regions, and one thing I am sure of is the unity of Ukrainian people. Different politicians and external forces are trying to divide Ukraine, but those divisions don’t apply to the level of interpersonal relationships among its citizens. We may speak different languages, have different opinions on geopolitical integration, and gravitate toward different political models, but the dominant majority of Ukrainians want to live in an independent and united Ukraine. That being said, it is very important for the new government to create an environment where open dialogue thrives. That is the best antidote against any attempts to create division in the future.

Getting alignment from international players is the final piece of the puzzle. It’s clear that external forces were the catalyst in the current crisis. It started from Yanukovych’s choice of a Russian pact over a trade agreement with Europe. The West was openly supporting the protest and threatening government officials with sanctions. Russia supported the dictator financially, politically, and via its mass media that reaches a large part of Ukrainian audience.

For President Putin, the current outcome poses two direct threats: It shows to the Russian people that change is possible even in post-Soviet countries, and it undermines his goal of rebuilding Russian dominance in the former Soviet territories. Nearly all of those countries have started to dismantle their democratic institutions. Local dictators have been successful in using state-controlled media to propagate the idea that democracy is a bad model for the 250 million people who live in the ex-USSR countries.

A peaceful outcome in Ukraine would be the best argument against this ideology. But Ukraine is heavily dependent on Russia, which is a monopoly gas supplier and a consumer of 28 percent of Ukrainian exports. The new Ukrainian government has to find a way to comfort its northern neighbor.

Ukraine should do just that by turning from a country that is dividing the EU and Russia into a bridge that unites them.