What is the lived experience of Russian identity and nationalism beyond Russia? In this chapter, I aim to complement existing research which examines the contemporary salience, if not resurgence, of nationalism within Russia from the top down and the bottom up (Kolstø and Blakkisrud 2016) with a case study of Crimea, a region where the majority of residents are assumed to identify as ethnically Russian. I use the approach of everyday nationalism to examine the meanings of identifying as ethnically Russian in Crimea to unpack how, prior to the 2014 annexation, being Russian was articulated, experienced, negotiated and subverted, and opposed to, or combined with, being Ukrainian and/or Crimean.

Throughout the chapter, I argue for a more nuanced understanding of Crimea. I challenge the dominant framing of Crimea that sees the peninsula as populated by a majority who identify strongly and uniformly as ethnically Russian and express pro-Russian sentiments and support of separatism. Similarly, I challenge the assumption that identity and territorial preferences are associated: that being Russian determines and explains territorial preferences (here: support for separatism). Such a framing would argue that Crimea's de facto secession from Ukraine – and annexation by Russia – has a simple explanation: a belligerent kin-state (Russia) and a supportive populace (Crimean society) finally got what they had been wanting ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead, I argue that, in the period immediately prior to the annexation (2012–13), separatism was framed as impossible and undesirable, even by the minority who were most vociferously and actively pro-Russian.

To support this argument, I use interview data to examine questions of identity from the bottom up to problematise a simplistic and homogenising understanding of the experiences and meanings of Russian identity in Crimea prior to annexation.