When Sovereignty Becomes a Slogan: How Recent Decisions Are Weakening the State from Within

When Sovereignty Becomes a Slogan: How Recent Decisions Are Weakening the State from Within

Over the past two days, political decisions have been framed as bold steps to protect sovereignty. But a closer look reveals a different reality. These moves have escalated tensions with regional administrations connected to strategic ports, turning political disagreements into structural cracks inside the state.

Rather than consolidating authority, the approach risks fragmenting it. State institutions grow stronger through inclusion, coordination, and trust—not through exclusion and confrontation. When key regional stakeholders are sidelined, the result is weakened governance, reduced security cooperation, and lost economic opportunities.

Equally troubling is the broader political alignment taking shape. An open tilt toward a single regional axis places the country at odds with peace-driven regional dynamics and ties national policy to ideological positions that reject pragmatic partnerships. This is not neutrality, and it is not strategic independence.

The timing of these decisions also raises serious questions. They coincide with an intensified regional campaign of political pressure and mobilization, suggesting that external agendas are influencing domestic choices. In this environment, sovereignty risks becoming a slogan rather than a substance.

True sovereignty is built by protecting national security, encouraging development, and maintaining balanced relationships that serve the people. Anything else weakens the state from the inside—no matter how loudly it is defended.