Search for a command to run...
This article explores one of the most complex issues in modern geopolitics: why do states use existential threats as a reason for war (casus belli)? How can we tell when such claims are based on genuine security concerns or when they are rhetorical tools hiding geopolitical interests? Using Jonathan Swift`s satirical allegory about the Lilliputians and Blefuscans, who go to war over a dispute about which end of a boiled egg should be broken, the author highlights a key dilemma: even in a world dominated by "naked power," states cannot act without legitimizing discourse, yet this discourse always remains ambiguous. Three ongoing conflicts are examined: the Russian-Ukrainian War (20142026), the US invasion of Iraq (2003), and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A comparative analysis reveals six common patterns in how justifications for war are constructed: framing history through shared traumatic memories, dehumanizing opponents through language, reframing self-defense as preventive, invoking civilizational rhetoric, reversing the roles of aggressor and victim, and selectively applying international law norms. The study shows that even in cases of outright aggression, aggressor states often convincingly portray themselves as victims an essential way to gain support and reduce international condemnation. It underscores a fundamental asymmetry: the 2003 Iraq War was based on false threats; Russia`s invasion of Ukraine was justified with fabricated NATO threats; and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains highly complex, with both sides holding deeply rooted existential threat narratives, yet power imbalances lead to uneven responses. These findings highlight the importance of the Swiftian Paradox as an analytical framework and raise critical questions about how discourse is used to justify violence in the twenty-first century. Keywords: Swift`s paradox, casus belli, legitimisation of war, security discourse, existential threats, geopolitical rhetoric, enemy construction, realism, critical theory, international conflicts.