When Yugoslavia was disintegrating, the newly independent states adopted constitutions in which it was known to write, usually in the preamble, that it was a state, for example, of the Serbian or Croatian people and all other citizens who live there.
It's easy to see Orwell's influence because they are all equal, except that some stand out from the others. That changed later, on paper. One routinely talks about "our country", as if the country is someone's ethnic property.
As a result, it is necessary to say that no one owns the state. In the debates after 2000 in Serbia, nationalists sought to establish some kind of equality between those who said that it was or should be a civil state and those who said that it should only be Serbian. This is how the concept of citizenism was born, which should be non-national extremism as wrong as nationalism, which considers those who do not belong to the nation whose country it is as second-class citizens.
The difference, however, is that the civil state only means that no one is the owner of the state in one collective capacity or another. What this means is best seen on the example of a country that is civil by birth, namely America. Take those who want to reclaim ownership of their land. By which some mean that it is Christian, or white, or popular, not elitist, or owned by the establishment, or the rich. What does this reference to state ownership mean?
Basically, what was suggested by the Orwellian formulation is that the country is ours and everyone else who lives in it. That some have a right of precedence in their country over other citizens. Which is then reflected in everything that is important in law and politics. In America, it is difficult to justify this with historical reasons because its citizens are immigrants, so they can hardly refer to historical law. It is, of course, not the only such country. And after all, all peoples are immigrants in one way or another. However, those who are already there can, and mostly do, claim that they have one or another kind of advantage over others who are otherwise granted equal rights.
In principle, however, the state is not anyone's collective property, which is ensured as much as possible either by a liberal-democratic order or by political unions.
The state is also not the owner of its own territory or any territory. This is because it does not own its citizens. This is especially clear in the example of population or territory replacement. This does not mean that the state cannot have sufficient force to expel some inhabitants or to agree with another state to exchange population. This is our country, and this is your country, so we will send you yours, and you send us ours. Or, our people live on that territory, and yours live on this one, so let's exchange territories. That power is not unrealistic, which is why it is being tried to be limited by the constitution, which precisely denies that the state is the owner of the territory and the people who live on it.
The state, of course, can be the owner of, say, land or ores or forests and alienate them if it sells them to private individuals, or companies, or even foreign state-owned companies. However, when it comes to state territory, it means the area where people live in the legal order of that state. In other words, the territory is determined by how far the legal order of a country reaches. The territory itself is not owned by the state because the citizens of the state are not owned by the state.
Again, this does not mean that a state cannot use force to seize territory, or expel some of its citizens, or exchange them for others. Just as he can decide to alienate the territory. If, for example, the territory of the state is considered the property of the one or those in power, they can alienate some part of the country, for example, sell it to another state, or barter parts of the state territory for another. For example, Trump intended to buy Greenland at one point. Which Denmark, in fact, cannot sell. Which does not mean that the inhabitants of Greenland cannot, if they wish, become independent and unite with another country.
So all the rhetoric about this being our country or our territory cannot be based on the very idea of a country, but it can be imposed if the necessary force is used.
Bonus video:
