I tend to view it as either of two things. Ultimately in the long term view it is the individual vs the group.

Short term it is more Nationalism vs Globalism. Is it okay to have countries, or do we need to disolve them and have a global government and no borders? If you believe the latter who gets to be the rulers that dictate how everyone must behave act, what is censored/banned, who can get medical treatment, who cannot, etc? You'd likely say it should be democratic yet none of the closest examples of such a ruling body be they the United Nations, the European Union, etc are elected. They are not democratic at all. In reality they are not even a republic. They are an oligarchy.

So people will reach for the feel good idea and support globalism without giving a damn about who get's the power to make the decisions.

That is the current battlefield.

As to Nationalists. Much like in the U.S. many of us argue that having 50 states with their own laws, programs, etc is much like having 50 different laboratories, and putting it all in the hands of the Federal Government is distilling it down to 1 laboratory.

In that case you can get 50 chances to get things right, or hope that your 1 chance is best.

This same applies to nations vs globalism. Each nation is its own living experiment. Globalism will destroy this and we bet EVERYTHING on the 1 rule of the oligarchs, plutocrats, fascists, establishment, or whatever you wish to label them.

Ultimately though the true battle is individualism vs group. People get generalized and stereotyped into groups. People also stereotype and generalize others into groups.

Often forgetting the ONLY true minority that matters. The individual.