We examine how uncertainty, securitisation, and ambiguous integration prospects shape political engagement among Russian wartime migrants in exile. Focusing on anti-war Russian migrants in Armenia, it analyses how leadership cues and protest framing affect migrants’ willingness to participate in political action under conditions of legal ambiguity, social vulnerability, and geopolitical tension. Using original data from the Political and Socio-Economic Attitudes of Russian Migrants (PRAM) survey (n ≈ 1,200–2,000), the study employs a fully randomised conjoint experiment to estimate the effects of leader attributes (gender, ethnicity, political experience, ideological proximity) and protest characteristics (purpose, risk) on mobilisation decisions. The paper bridges individual- and meso-level explanations of diasporic political behaviour, showing that engagement in exile is neither absent nor unconditional but contingent on perceived leadership credibility, ideological safety, and acceptable levels of risk. Armenia serves as a strategic case as it combines strong anti-war sentiment with uncertain legal status, uneven host-society receptivity, and exposure to transnational repression, placing Russian wartime migrants between integration and isolation.

We examine how uncertainty, securitisation, and ambiguous integration prospects shape political engagement among Russian wartime migrants in exile. Focusing on anti-war Russian migrants in Armenia, it analyses how leadership cues and protest framing affect migrants’ willingness to participate in political action under conditions of legal ambiguity, social vulnerability, and geopolitical tension. Using original data from the Political and Socio-Economic Attitudes of Russian Migrants (PRAM) survey (n ≈ 1,200–2,000), the study employs a fully randomised conjoint experiment to estimate the effects of leader attributes (gender, ethnicity, political experience, ideological proximity) and protest characteristics (purpose, risk) on mobilisation decisions. The paper bridges individual- and meso-level explanations of diasporic political behaviour, showing that engagement in exile is neither absent nor unconditional but contingent on perceived leadership credibility, ideological safety, and acceptable levels of risk. Armenia serves as a strategic case as it combines strong anti-war sentiment with uncertain legal status, uneven host-society receptivity, and exposure to transnational repression, placing Russian wartime migrants between integration and isolation.

Before the war in Ukraine, Russians were among the largest and well-accepted immigrant groups in the Baltic countries. However, the situation has since changed. While in other countries the number of Russian migrants grew, Baltic countries implemented strict entry controls and limited the issuance of visas and residence permits to Russian citizens. Some political dissidents, professionals, and anti-war activists still managed to resettle in the Baltics, however, they arrived in a tense and increasingly hostile political climate marked by state-led de-Russification, further complicating their integration. Our study reveals that the dominant narratives of securitization have resulted in stigmatization of Russians as a group, and even opposition activists are not welcomed by the majority of the population. How to facilitate trust and cooperation, reduce prejudice, and let the voice of the Russian activists be heard, remains a challenge.

Beyond the multiple challenges associated with exile— including bureaucratic precarity, limited access to employment, and living in societies where many migrants do not speak the local language—Russians who left the country after 2022 face an additional, less tangible form of uncertainty: national mnemonic insecurity. While memory studies have long moved beyond the assumption that national collective memory is static or confined within state borders, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing (in)voluntary emigration of Russian citizens have profoundly destabilized the narratives and foundations of Russia’s collective memory. Since 2022, an increasingly diverse range of actors within the Russian migrant community has engaged in debates over history and memory—both in relation to Russia and to their host country. This dynamic is particularly salient in Germany, where the fieldwork for this paper was conducted. As a “master” of memory struggles, Germany provides a revealing setting for examining long-standing and contested memory debates. This paper pursues two objectives. First, it maps the memory-related uncertainties and debates that have (re)emerged among Russian migrants since the full-scale invasion. Second, it examines how different categories of migrants—activist groups in particular—have engaged with and sought to shape these debates. Attending to these mnemonic (un)certainties is essential for understanding the heterogeneity of post-2022 Russian migration and for assessing the evolution of Russian national memory under conditions of war and displacement. More broadly, this analysis is timely in a global context marked by the growing influence of far-right politics and the normalization of historical revisionism beyond authoritarian regimes.

Wars and international confrontations are known to strengthen national identities. Less attention has been paid, however, to how such events shape the identities of those living outside their homeland. This article unpacks the schemas of national belonging by comparing first and second-generation Russian migrants in Germany. We seek to understand how both generations articulate different modes of national belonging in relation to home and host societies. Extending Bonikowski and DiMaggio's seminal work, we focus on the socialising impact of major geopolitical events in a migratory context - that is, how political ruptures raise or diminish the salience of particular national schemas. The research draws on 40 in-depth semi-structured interviews with first- and second-generation Russians aged 18-36. The former were socialised in Russia and arrived in Germany after they turned 18; the latter were socialised in Germany and grew up in a household that they characterised as Russian. Russian migrants in Germany are an ideal illustration of cross-border travel of identities and its impact across migrant generations. The home country of individuals with ties to Russia is in direct confrontation with their host society across many dimensions. We find that among second-generation migrants, geopolitical events involving the home country stabilise state-focused identity schemas in tension with the host society. In contrast, first-generation migrants more often articulate national schemas below both, their host and home societies.