Diaspora Integration and Kin-State Foreign Policy: Comparing Russian Compatriot Policy in Crimea and Narva

This paper investigates how the level of diaspora integration in host states influences the scope of kin-state foreign policy. Specifically, it examines the relationship between Russian diaspora integration and the extent of Russia's "compatriot policy" deployment, comparing Crimea (Ukraine) and Narva (Estonia) from the early 2000s through 2014. Despite demographic similarities, with both regions hosting Russian-speaking majorities exceeding 70 percent of the local population, these cases produced dramatically different outcomes. Crimea was annexed following military intervention in March 2014, while Narva remained an integral part of Estonia, with Russian activity limited to cultural and symbolic influence. The paper addresses a central puzzle in the literature on diaspora politics and kin-state relations: why do states pursue comprehensive intervention policies toward diaspora populations in certain contexts while limiting themselves to softer instruments in others? I argue that diaspora integration levels function as a mediating variable that shapes the range of policy instruments available to kin states. Lower integration creates conditions conducive to comprehensive engagement strategies, while higher integration constrains homeland governments to limited policy options. The theoretical framework combines two analytical models. First, Heckmann and Schnapper's four-dimensional integration framework distinguishes between structural integration (incorporation into state institutions), cultural integration (language acquisition and norm adoption), social integration (interethnic relations), and identificational integration (sense of belonging to the host state). Second, Grigas's seven-instrument model of Russian compatriot policy identifies the tools Russia deploys toward its diaspora, ranging from soft power and humanitarian support through information warfare and citizenship distribution to protective rhetoric and annexation. Employing a most-similar-cases comparative design, the paper analyzes both cases across integration dimensions and policy instruments. Data sources include government documents, public opinion surveys, academic studies, and policy reports. The analysis demonstrates that in Crimea, weak integration across all four dimensions, characterized by limited incorporation into Ukrainian institutions, Russian cultural and linguistic dominance, segregated social networks, and strong identification with Russia, enabled Russia to deploy all seven policy instruments culminating in annexation. In Narva, partial but meaningful integration, including gradual linguistic adaptation among youth, expanding interethnic contact, and emerging hybrid identities combining ethnic Russian and Estonian civic elements, constrained Russian policy to the first four instruments only, with limited effectiveness. The findings contribute to theoretical debates on diaspora-homeland relations by specifying conditions under which kin states can effectively mobilize dispersed populations for foreign policy purposes. The paper also offers policy-relevant insights for states hosting significant diaspora populations, suggesting that integration policy constitutes not merely a matter of social cohesion but also a component of national resilience against external interference. The research acknowledges limitations, including the two-case design and potential confounding variables such as NATO membership and military presence, while proposing directions for future research examining additional cases and incorporating more comprehensive quantitative measurements of integration outcomes.