Post-Soviet migrants constitute one of the largest migrant groups in Germany. Despite their long migration history and political relevance, there has been limited scholarly attention to their political orientations, and underlying socialization patterns. This paper examines how experiences of political socialization in (post-)Soviet societies shape the political orientations of post-Soviet migrants in Germany and how these orientations transform within a democratic environment that fundamentally differs from their political experiences of origin. It explores how inherited political certainties interact with the new uncertainties of migration, integration, and participation. The paper builds on concepts of political culture and (re-)socialization, complemented by the analytical lens of Homo (post-)sovieticus. This framework conceptualizes deeply rooted cognitive and normative patterns fostered under Soviet rule and further shaped by post-Soviet transformations. These orientations are understood as historically embedded interpretive frameworks that continue to influence political perceptions and behaviors even long after migration. Empirically, the paper draws on an exploratory design combining a quantitative online survey with qualitative interviews among post-Soviet migrants who immigrated to Germany after adolescence, i.e. after their formative years of socialization within the political culture of their countries of origin. The documentary method of analyses enables to reconstruct latent, collectively shared patterns of political interpretation and to trace underlying structures of meaning across individual narratives. The analysis reveals six interrelated political orientations: 1. Skeptical–distant, characterized by political distrust and alienation; 2. State-paternalistic, expressing strong expectations of state care and responsibility; 3. Security-centered, emphasizing order, stability, and collective protection; 4. Freedom-oriented, valuing predominantly individual autonomy and negative conception of freedom; 5. Leadership-oriented, reflecting preferences for strong and an outcome-oriented authority; and 6. Migration-critical, combining ethnic envy and egalitarian rhetoric with cultural superiority toward newcomers. Taken together, these orientations demonstrate the persistence of (post-)Soviet socialization patterns while also pointing to processes of partial re-socialization and hybridization within Germany’s political culture. The findings highlight how migrants navigate between inherited certainties and new democratic uncertainties, negotiating legitimacy, authority, and belonging in a context marked by contrasting value systems. By linking the study of migration and political culture, this paper contributes to understanding how political orientations are transmitted, transformed, and contested across social and geopolitical boundaries. The paper draws on the doctoral dissertation, submitted at the University of Cologne in 2025.

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered a new wave of emigration from Russia, marked by heightened political reflexivity and moral urgency. For many migrants, the presence of a stable democratic system in the host country became a key criterion in choosing a destination—both to secure political and personal stability and to avoid the moral injury associated with remaining in a country waging war. Yet this search for democratic stability has unfolded under unexpected conditions, as many receiving countries have themselves been experiencing democratic crises, political polarization, armed conflict, or profound social upheaval. This paper examines the resettlement experiences of war-driven migrants from Russia who arrive in host societies undergoing political and social crises that resonate sharply with their reasons for leaving. We conceptualize this situation as a “double challenge,” in which migrants confront overlapping and mutually reinforcing regimes of uncertainty—one rooted in displacement from Russia and another emerging from crises in the receiving societies themselves. For many politically engaged and liberally oriented migrants of this wave, the democratic crisis in the United States, the rightward political turn in parts of Europe, and the ongoing war in Israel represent not peripheral conditions of reception but deeply unsettling continuities. Migrants who sought refuge from war and authoritarianism thus find themselves once again embedded in armed conflict, democratic erosion, or acute political polarization. Empirically, the paper draws on an ongoing qualitative study of war-driven migration from Russia, based on more than 50 in-depth interviews conducted with migrants in the United States, Israel, and selected European countries. Through a comparative focus on destination contexts, we analyze how migrants’ expectations of stability, safety, and democratic normalcy collide with the realities of political polarization, rightward political shifts, and, in Israel’s case, ongoing war. We employ the concept of the expectation gap to capture the intensified dissonance between migrants’ anticipations of the host country and their lived experiences upon arrival. For politically engaged migrants from Russia, the realization that the host society is itself “in crisis” often generates a sense of compounded precarity. Uncertainty regarding legal, professional, and residential status intersects with moral and emotional uncertainties related to belonging and future trajectories. Migrants’ responses range from re-evaluating migration decisions, including onward migration or return, to strategies of shared vulnerability with local populations or deliberate distancing from host-country conflicts. By comparing the U.S., Israeli, and European contexts, the paper shows how different political environments structure distinct regimes of uncertainty and shape specific modes of coping.

Since the outbreak of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in February 2022, Moldova’s border regions have been profoundly reshaped by large-scale migratory movements and an intensified focus on migration control and security. These movements transformed the Moldovan border cities into spaces of arrival, safety, humanitarian assistance, and transit. At the same time, Moldova’s EU candidate status accelerated processes of Europeanisation in the fields of border control and internal security. In a region traditionally characterised by high levels of daily cross-border mobility for work, family visits, and consumption, the war has fundamentally disrupted these mobility patterns and reshaped the meaning of the border. Although the situation has currently stabilised, the infrastructure and preparedness to manage mass migration flows in the event of further escalation of the war remain in place. Drawing on continuous ethnographic fieldwork conducted since October 2024 in three Moldovan regions bordering Ukraine (excluding Transdniestria) and Romania, this paper examines how people living close to the border perceive security, and mobility under conditions of heightened uncertainty since 2022. Based on observations, qualitative interviews with local inhabitants, authorities, and representatives of humanitarian organisations, as well as the analysis of policy documents and reports, the paper sheds light on local perceptions, and strategies for navigating a situation marked by crisis and unclear future developments. First findings indicate that since the outbreak of the war, new infrastructures, surveillance technologies, and the presence of the EU-agency Frontex have transformed how the border is governed and experienced. Alongside these securitising dynamics, however, the crisis has also intensified cross-border cooperation and informal support networks. Bringing together insights from Critical Border Studies and research on EU migration governance, the paper argues that certainty and uncertainty coexist in ambivalent ways in Moldova’s border regions. While the ongoing war fosters insecurity related to safety, economic stability, and the timeline of EU accession, it has simultaneously opened spaces for cooperation and investment through international funding. The increased presence of police and international actors can be perceived both as a source of reassurance and as a constraint, while cross-border collaboration and humanitarian engagement contribute to new forms of social cohesion and allow development and modernisation of infrastructure. By showing how people living close to the border negotiate these contradictory dynamics in their everyday lives, the paper contributes to existing literature on the role and changing dynamics of borders as well as Europeanisation processes.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Ukrainian government issued an emigration ban for men of conscription age, while the EU activated its Temporary Protection Directive (TPD). In 2023, the Republic of Moldova adopted a very similar protection regime. Although rooted in domestic policy, all of these decisions are subject to diplomatic efforts and negotiations. They highlight that Russia’s aggression marks a watershed moment in relations between the EU, Ukraine, and Moldova, including with regard to joint migration governance. Yet, existing literature largely neglects effects of war on migration diplomacy and governance. Although contributions offer important insights into the complex decision-making and challenges of Temporary Protection beneficiaries (Karimi/Byelikova 2024), studies rarely examine political negotiations. This aligns with a broader gap regarding the governance level in scholarship linking conflict and migration studies (Lischer 2007: 153). At the same time, research on migration diplomacy and governance often lacks a conflict perspective. As part of a PhD project that aims to bridge these different literature strands, this paper explores how Russia’s war of aggression impacted migration-related negotiations between the EU, Ukraine, and Moldova and how this shaped individual mobility options. It combines process-tracing with a qualitative content analysis of interviews, held with EU, Ukrainian, and Moldovan officials, as well as policy documents adopted since 2022. Findings show that the TPD is part of the EU’s strategic response to Russia’s aggression and an important tool in expressing geopolitical alignment. This enables the Ukrainian government to actively engage with EU officials on the issue and assert its interests regarding questions of identity and return. More informal and flexible cooperation formats are created to facilitate dialogue between member states, Ukraine, and Moldova. While this “emergency response” enabled displaced Ukrainians to move relatively freely at the beginning, trajectories are shaped by uncertainty as the war continues and policymakers struggle to develop more permanent solutions. Moreover, mobility options resulting from Temporary Protection are deeply gendered, reflecting continuous negotiations over masculinities in relation to mobility and war. These negotiations have a performative effect, structuring mobility options through different intersectionalities. By showing how Temporary Protection legislation simultaneously shapes and is shaped by relations between the EU, Ukraine, and Moldova in light of Russia’s aggression war, this paper complements existing research and highlights the geopolitical significance of protection policies. Because these dynamics directly affect people’s mobility options, the paper underscores the need to integrate conflict and migration studies and further explore how people’s mobility and governance responses to conflict intersect.