This dissertation concerns the development and interaction of Kazakh and Russian identities in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. My research questions were: (1) what was the character of these identities in 2003/04 (the time of my research); (2) how have these identities interacted to form dominant and subordinate identities, and (3) how can the character of these identities and their interaction be explained? In order to research these questions I used a general questionnaire followed up by open ended interviews of a representative sample of Kazakhstani citizens. While my research findings show continued uncertainty and provisionality in both Kazakh and Russian identities, which confirms the broad trend of previous surveys, they also indicate signs of change in the emergence of more consolidated dominant and subordinate identities in the less Russianised areas like Chimkent and among the younger generation, while by contrast the older generations of Russians, particularly in the more Russianised areas, find it difficult to accept the delegitimation of their dominant status as reflected in the nationalizing policies pursued by the new state. In theoretical terms these findings confirm the importance of the study of ethnic stratification, which has not received sufficient attention in previous research in this area. In explaining these developments I found that the character of the transition and also of the ‘prior regime type’ in Kazakhstan has had a significant effect on ethnic relationships, but also that international factors, such as those presented in Brubaker’s triadic model, and internal factors, elaborated by Schermerhorn and Horowitz, were also important.

ABSTRACT This thesis examines how Russian political elites and intellectuals have approached the issues of Russian nation and diaspora since 1991. This thesis observes that while Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin claim to advocate a civic definition of a nation in the boundaries of Russia / they extend the definition of Russian nation to cover the &lsquo / Russian diaspora&rsquo / as well. This thesis argues that the inclusion of the term Russian diaspora in Russian discourse of nationalism has paved the way for developing a consensus about Russia&rsquo / s new identity among its political elites and intellectuals. Accordingly, Russia which is defined as a homeland of ethnic Russians identifies itself as the protector of the rights of Russians in ex-Soviet republics. Moreover, this diasporic politics has been used to legitimate the Russian engagement in the internal and external affairs of post-Soviet states. Nevertheless, as this thesis demonstrates, ethnic Russians residing in the post-Soviet states have significant diversity in terms of their political orientations towards Russia. There are five parts in this thesis. After the introduction, the first chapter explains the role of Russian diaspora in the politics of Russian nationalism under Yeltsin and Putin. While the second chapter examines intellectual approaches to the issues of Russian national identity and diaspora, the third chapter focuses on the conditions of ethnic Russians in the post-Soviet states. The final part is the conclusion.

The question of Russia's geopolitical affiliation has been a cause of centuries long debate, whether Russia belongs to Europe or to Asia. From the geographical point of view, Russia is predominantly situated in Asia. From cultural and civilisational points of view, Russian people tend to lean towards Europe, even though they capture elements of both civilizations. By examination of the most prominent Russian schools of thought, mainly of geopolitical nature (Slavophilism, Westernism, Atlantisms, Eurasianism, etc.) the work seeks to systemize the answers to this question. At the same time, it seeks to determine through analysis of the contemporary Russian foreign policy, which of these ideological leanings plays a dominant role in foreign policy discourse in Russia since 2000. Thanks to identification of this priority direction and by determining the primary orientation of Russian foreign policy in a particular region, the aim of this work is finally to answer the following question: What is Russia: Europe, Asia, or a separate continent of Eurasia?

This project investigates Russian nationalist organisations during the invasion of Ukraine, to study their collective identity and practises. It features an ethnography of 26 organisations, their websites and social media. Their content is coded via a semiotic framework, categorising their symbols, images, content posted and other identity tropes. It is then analysed by applying political, sociological and communication theories. The study’s background is the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with its dynamics of war and cultural struggle. The results are that Russian collective identities simplified their communication already by the end of March 2022, abandoning many of the tropes they initially supported, as well as their symbols, limiting themselves to attribute the label of Nazism to Ukraine and its government, avoiding the promotion of frontline volunteer activities and considering Russia’s struggle as global. Finally, most continued to evaluate the invasion of Ukraine as proceeding positively, and at the time half the organisations referred to it as special military operation.