I am not sure our main focus should be the Vikings, especially from the moment the Kievan state becomes important. Sure, they played a part, but the extent of this part is still a matter of debate. You find very little traces of Viking traditions in Kevian Rus, at least that's what all my reseach led me to (although yes, the first leaders and their court were most probably from Scandinavia, this court keeping Scandinavian names for a long time after that, but that's about it. Besides, it seems that the Rus have appeared in texts before the arrival of Scandinavians in the south of what would become the Kievan Rus. But I have hardly read all the literature on the subject, so I'm pretty open to whatever sources you could give me to investigate the role of the Vikings). The main sources that give weight to the Normanist theory are the Chronicles, especially the Primary Chronicle, and it's pretty certain it is hardly reliable. I am not saying, however, that we shouldn't give the Vikings the exposure they deserve, but I hardly think the Varangian Way should mostly be dedicated to "cover all aspects of the history of the Vikings in the east". There is enough space for more than that, I think.

Also, there are a great number of interesting people/tribes (Khazars, Alans, and many other Slavs tribes, to name only a few) that were there long before Vikings set foot on Eastern Europe soil, that deserve to be represented to some extent

Finally, I have a practical issue with that - we don't have many datas about cities in the region just when Vikings arrived. The earliest maps I could find apply to Kiev in the 11-12th centuries - at a time when the people from the North had been totally assimilated and couldn't be told apart

Maybe though, you never meant to propose to focus mostly on Vkings in the Varangian Way, but just wanted to have them being discussed? In that case, what I said above will have as sole purpose to point out other directions we could work in ^-^