🕊️ Defence or Deception? The War Behind the Words

If you analyse today’s conflicts around the world, a striking pattern emerges: Regardless of the country involved, it’s always the Minister of Defence who steps in front of the cameras. Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran, the U.S., China, Germany — all call it "defence." But why?

🎭 Because “defence” sounds legitimate. “War” doesn’t.

Since WWII, the UN Charter has outlawed wars of aggression. Politically, the word war has become toxic. So states rebrand it: They speak of defence, even when they are the ones dropping bombs. It’s a rhetorical manoeuvre that gives military action moral cover. “Defence” implies justice.

📜 A historical shift. A rhetorical convenience.

The U.S. has a “Department of Defense” — even though it wasn’t attacked by Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan and many others.

✅ A historically grounded and evidence-based global estimate would put the number of civilians killed due to U.S. military actions since 1945 between

3.6 and 5.8 million.

Russia? Ministry of Defence. China, France, Germany? Same story. Worldwide, the same euphemism is used.

🇮🇱 Case Study: Israel’s Vocabulary of Perpetual Defence

From a linguistic perspective, Israel has consistently framed its actions as defensive. Yet what happens when “defence” includes airstrikes on civilians, collective punishment, or even shooting someone already lying on the ground? Is it still defence — or is it rebranded aggression?

Decades ago, the ideal was to "turn the other cheek." Today, some strategies appear closer to erasure of the enemy, increasingly radicalised with each cycle of violence. What once claimed moral high ground now risks becoming a doctrine of escalation.

💣 And then there’s NATO.

The NATO framework — conceived initially as a defensive alliance — has gradually evolved into something more ambiguous. When NATO speaks of “defending freedom,” military intervention is often portrayed as a humanitarian mission.

But if every war becomes righteous by narrative, what is left of peace?

When the highest oath becomes not peace, but war for the right reasons, language itself becomes weaponised.

📢 As the Peace Minister of a hypothetical state, I, Robert Bargolini, hereby declare:

“No military alliance can be called peaceful if it normalises war as a tool of diplomacy.”

💡 Cui bono? — Who benefits from this language game?

The arms industry? Authoritarian control? Public distraction? When words are weaponized, we must ask not just what is said — but who gains from it being said that way.

🔄 But what if we had a Ministry of Peace instead?

Thinks in enemy images Thinks in mutual understanding

#LanguageMatters #Geopolitics #PeaceNotWar #DefenseOrAttack #MinistryOfPeace #WordsAndPower #Israel #Ukraine #Iran #NATO #CuiBono #WarRhetoric #SpeakTruth #RobertBargolini