What little experience I've had with history of ideas has been tracing a concept through time using written documents. This book focuses on a contemporary issue and uses interviews with people who were there (or who could have been but chose not to be). At first I got lost among the many unfamiliar names, but then I read more for the idea and less to trace individual's progression (or lack) of idea. People who reappear frequently have brief descriptive phrases to remind us who they are.

I was struck by occasional comment on languages being used in interviews. There was the comfort in switching languages during a comment, there were instances where the interviewer spoke one language, the interviewee another as they discussed an article in yet a third language. There is a lot we monolingual Americans don't understand. Another important point was to decouple language from nationality: there were people who spoke Russian and considered themselves fully Ukrainian. For me that took away current arguments by Putin claiming that the "special military operaton" was to free oppressed Russian speakers.

The first section focuses on Kyiv. There the decision was to go to the protest or not to go because of danger more than being about a clash of ideas. The second part focuses on the Donbas where idea difference was more at play. While there are interviews of various positions, there are more pro protest and revolution. One interviewee said that about a third of the people were for, a third against and a third indifferent. A couple pro revolution interviewees said that if the Russians were to cross the border back to Russia, the Separatist struggle would soon be over.

The book is an intriguing look into thoughts people consider when making decisions in a time of unsettling one government for another.