Taking the Bull by the Tail

"a country and its government are not one and the same, they are two separate entities"

We can assign the word, government, to an entity provided that the entity is a set. The set would have as its members numerous people such as legislators, prime ministers, judges, cops, taxgatherers, etc., but the set would not be an entity that exists in the physical world. Instead it would be a mental object. Furthermore, if more than one person conceives of this set, then there is more than one government.

On the other hand, if we assign the term, government, to the behavior of the members of the aforementioned set(s), then we have a way to place government in the physical world. But when dealing with government in this sense of the term, it's important to recall that in spite of all the symbolism and pomp and circumstance, all we really have are a bunch of individuals acting in concert with one another and pushing around other individuals. If we want to eradicate government, there is no physical entity to eradicate, but only a relatively few individuals to disperse such that they can no longer act in concert with one another. (Granted, millions of benighted nationalists might clamor for their replacement with people who can act in concert for the purpose of governing.)

The term, country, has its own idiosyncrasies. It could refer to some patch of land, which in any case existed long before anyone projected onto it terms such as England or USA. Or it could refer to a group of people, i.e. to a set people. But as with the set of governors, this set doesn't exist in the physical world. Unfortunately, the blood and soil man commingles the two different concepts, and mostly in accordance with borders drawn arbitrarily by his masters and stringpullers. He is the loudmouthed patriot, the warmonger, the boor who can be found driving around with an image of the American flag and bald eagle painted on the rear window of his pickup truck. Sometimes an FBI agent, too.

There's serious problem with the word country when its used in the latter sense, to refer to a set of people. What, exactly, are the criteria by which we include members in this set? Is it based upon borders proclaimed long ago by a few members of a set called government? Let's take the case of someone who grows up in Detroit, as did I. It so happens that numerous Canadians live a little to the south and south east of Detroit, in Windsor and nearby areas. Why should any intelligent person in Detroit ever have counted as members of his country all the people in, say, Queens, San Francisco, or Dallas but not the Canadian? It's quite likely that the Detroiter and Canadian have more in common than the Detroiter does with many people on the west coast, east coast, or Texas. A similar argument holds for the Canadian in southwest Ontario with respect to people in Vancouver, Quebec, etc. So the Detroiter may include in his country someone in Windsor, but not the San Franciscan or other person who is supposed to be his fellow countryman and to whom he is yoked by a few knaves in places like Lansing and the DC.

As you suggested yourself, your country is your civil society, but, given the limitations that come with being human, one isn't likely to have social relations on a personal basis with more than a few hundred or few thousand people at the very most. All the rest are mere strangers, and while that's no excuse whatsoever for deprecating their rights, as flagwavers and warmongers are wont to do with those they regard as foreigners, it remains true that those strangers have little claim to be counted as part of one's country.