“Negative Nationalism” Is Being Weaponized Against Civilization-States

The fledgling states that emerged from them, which never existed before, tend to be ultra-nationalist and obsess over their real or perceived differences.

A top multipolar trend is the rise of civilization-states, which refers to those that left lasting socio-cultural legacies on their neighbors over the centuries. Their regional and in some cases global roles are growing at an accelerated pace. They remain diverse, but parts of their historic territories have since obtained independence. These fledgling states, which never existed before, tend to be ultra-nationalist and obsess over real or perceived differences between them and the civilization-state from which they emerged.

This “negative nationalism” is a potent force of political mobilization and has been weaponized, or is in the process of being weaponized, by others against their neighboring civilization-state. Three examples of this include Ukraine vis-à-vis Russia since independence, ditto that for Eritrea vis-à-vis Ethiopia, and Bangladesh vis-à-vis India after summer 2024’s US-backed regime change. Putin has talked about this a lot while the Ethiopian Foreign Minister recently did the same as did a former Bangladeshi minister.

The US weaponized Ukraine’s “negative nationalism” against Russia, Egypt weaponized Eritrea’s against Ethiopia, and Pakistan is weaponizing Bangladesh’s against India. Having been part of their civilization-state for centuries, each of these new and comparatively smaller states knows their “motherly” one’s vulnerabilities, ergo why they’ve been tasked with destabilizing them. The targeted civilization-state respects their sovereignty; they only request that these new countries don’t pose threats to them.

Ukraine, Eritrea, and post-coup Bangladesh began to do precisely that, however, upon others exploiting their predisposition to “negative nationalism” and manipulating them into viewing Russia, Ethiopia, and India as threats to their sovereignty. This led to manufactured security dilemmas that in turn created (or in Bangladesh and India’s case is creating) self-sustaining cycles of regional instability that are guided by the smaller state’s patron for proxy war purposes against their larger neighbor.

This takes many forms that include pushing anti-state propaganda, hosting anti-state militants that the targeted civilization-state considers to be terrorists, and colluding with their respective patron on provocative military-strategic issues that could give them both a qualitative edge over their shared target. What’s so tricky about these tactics is that any reaction from the civilization-state is misportrayed as an “overreaction” due to their asymmetries and dishonestly spun as “proof of hegemonic intentions”.

They then find themselves in a zero-sum dilemma whereby whatever they do, including nothing at all, leads to the threat metastasizing until it spills over into their borders in some form of another. The most dramatic response of military action along the lines of Russia’s special operation is aimed at decisively eliminating the threat but is already accounted for by their rival and can thus be taken advantage of to initiate a regional proxy war as is the case in this example. No silver-bullet solution therefore exists.

Nevertheless, those civilization-states that are threatened by others’ weaponization of their neighbors’ “negative nationalism” can share their experiences with a view to devising creative solutions to their dilemmas, which might avert a repeat of Russia’s special operation in the Ethiopian and Indian cases. Although both have every right to use military force in defense of their national security interests, this could still inadvertently destabilize their regions, hence why it’s ideal to employ other means if possible.