maybe, but when it comes to calling bluffs it would be much harder for the government to sustain continued denial of services than for Google et al to keep the case in court
You see, Google exists because there are governments willing to acknowledge that they have a right to exist.
It's the Zeroth law of the Economy. There's economic activity when you aren't getting shot at. If Google starts making sufficient waves that enough diplomatic pressure can be put on their host country to start tightening the thumbscrews, Google will be faced with a situation where suddenly a lot of it's worth and value start to disappear. If they start having to hire lawyers left and right due to scrutiny by the government or other governments, it becomes a less attractive asset to the market, and opens room for intrepid disruptors to replace their services.
Google has 'won' by being willing to play ball. Once hard ball starts being played, make no mistake. Google will get tipped.
...and if it doesn't, God save us all from the paths that leads to. I'm pretty sure they won't be pretty.
In practice, I'm sure we won't need anything remotely resembling disorder. Google is a monopoly on the search market, but not a holder of a unique resource. One can have pretty good services, be that from Bing/DuckDuckGo (watch how fast they'll upgrade their indexes) or Yandex and other international players. Other than search, Google is even less relevant.
Not being a holder of a unique resource is a good point.
Google do have the mind share though, can you imagine trying to explain to Aunty Robyn that you have to type duckduckgo.com into the search bar now? and that she cant google it anymore?
The government certainly can. For examine, work with the major national ISPs to change the DNS entrees for google.com to a page listing the alternatives. Or just a state-themed version of DDG or Bing