Images of “Us” and “Others” as a Factor in the Identification of Citizens in the Context of the Reintegration of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol into the Russian Federation

The question of scientific understanding of the features of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol reintegration into the sociocultural and identification space of the Russian Federation is relevant from the point of view of using this experience in the integration processes taking place today in new Russian territories. The theoretical approaches of modern Russian and Western authors devoted to the identification side of integration using the example of the formation of the European Union, the reintegration of East and West Germany, as well as the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation were taken as the conceptual basis for the study. The study relied on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The applied part was carried out at Sevastopol Federal University. Analysis of the data obtained allowed us to draw several conclusions. There are some multidirectional trends in the formation of the Russian national-state identity of residents of the regions. The majority of residents of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol generally identify themselves with Russia and see their regions as part of it. They consider common space, history, culture, and traditions to be the basis for this. They consider these same factors, to a much greater extent than the political or civil components, to be the basis of patriotism. Among these factors, a significant role is played by the memory of historical events of different periods, perceived as part of a single Russian history. At the same time, in the system of spatial and historical images there is a tendency towards a region-centric perception of the country, a desire to highlight and emphasize the special significance of its territory both in history and in the modern space of the Russian Federation. The desire to preserve the unity and cohesion of the peoples of the country, expressed in various forms, became significant. There is some difference here from the results of all-Russian studies - representatives of other nationalities are perceived much more neutrally and calmly than in Russia as a whole. Foreign countries act as “others”, enemies or competitors. At the same time, the images of these countries are poorly specified and reflect the superficial reproduction of media information rather than the result of one’s own understanding of events.