All developed democracies in the world were primarily nationalistic, until they gained an advantage in technology. Once a technological advantage has been achieved on the world market, they have become globalist, while simultaneously condemning any manifestations of nationalism in other countries that are still dependent on foreign technologies.
Is it possible to be a globalist and justify nationalism? It is impossible, unless of course we are talking about the nationalism of the State of Israel, whose nationalism is approved absolutely by all globalists. Globalism, biting off a pieces of the economic environment of Russia, naturally enter into conflict with Russian nationalism, but to argue that nationalism is synonymous with autocracy is a lie built on counterfeit by globalists history.
Globalism is the concept of today. If it did not conflict with the national interests of individual states, then this is in principle quite a progressive phenomenon; devouring resources of the planet, corrupting national elites, diminishing traditional moral code, but still progressive. “Let the chips fall where they may”.
On the contrary, Nationalism is trying to balance this uncontrolled devouring of the planet’s resources. Nationalism is based on tradition, globalism is only hindered by tradition, it needs a cosmopolitan consumer free from any moral conventions .
Therefore, as soon as the social organism of the nation feels that it is necessary to slightly correct the system, a healthy nationalism enters into the matter. It can be economic, not just military. It is not necessary to seize other people’s land, you need to seize foreign markets or protect your markets from others. Tariffs are a protection tool. Sanctions are an instrument of attack.
As soon as the system is adjusted , the conflict between “globalists” and “nationalists” disappears from the society.