The Dynamics of Russian Identity

The Russian Federation continues to monopolise issues related to Russian identity. As repression has intensified, the boundaries of acceptable public discourse have been increasingly narrowed by the Russian government. Across all clusters, we observe growing censorship, with state-driven narratives increasingly dominating public discourse.

Soviet memory remains the strongest component in the construction of contemporary civic identity in the Russian Federation. Commemoration of Soviet repression is increasingly being displaced by a narrative portraying the Soviet people as both victims and victors. This shift is reflected in the repurposing of the Gulag Museum and the introduction of a national Remembrance Day commemorating the “genocide of the Soviet people.” At the same time, the memory of the Second World War is being increasingly intertwined with the ongoing war in Ukraine.

The principal finding is that the Russian authorities have not yet articulated a coherent official ideology.Instead, they are constructing a layered, state-centred identity in which loyalty to the Russian Federation and its leadership is reinforced through an increased emphasis on the memory of Soviet victory, the Russian language, civilizational sovereignty, and the managed unity of the country’s diverse peoples.

Geopolitical separation from the West is increasingly presented as a domestic cultural norm through language policy, education, and state control of the digital sphere. Cyrillic-first signage, restrictions on foreign films and literature, official assessments of adherence to “traditional values,” militarised university courses, youth surveillance, and the establishment of new Russian-language institutions make this separation visible in everyday life, media consumption, and education. Russian Orthodoxy provides much of the moral and historical language for this project but remains subordinate to the state and, in some respects, to the enduring prestige of Soviet memory.

The identity project nevertheless contains significant contradictions. Demographic decline and labour shortages make immigration economically necessary, while migration policy increasingly treats foreigners as objects of surveillance, deportation, and political loyalty screening, pressuring them to obtain Russian citizenship. Official celebration of multinational unity coexists with the dominance of the Russian language and limited space for the autonomous development of the country’s non-Russian cultures. Internationally, Russia presents itself as an independent Eurasian pole, yet its foreign policy remains flexible, transactional, and increasingly dependent on China and foreign technological infrastructure. Meanwhile, legal political opposition is being systematically eliminated from domestic politics. Although exile organisations have gained limited international recognition, the Russian authorities continue to expand the use of terrorist and extremist designations, the “foreign agent” label, and extraterritorial sanctions against their opponents.