This research presents a comparative case study between the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the United State’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. It specifically examines how the two interventions were framed by the political executives. Frame theory and a qualitative content analysis served as theoretical­ and methodological benchmarks to assess selected speeches and public statements delivered by president George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, in order to detect similar motives and justification patterns for the armed occupations. Four distinct war frames emerged from the text material: prevention, common good, state liability and imposed war. The results demonstrate that state leaders are prone to strategically communicate their military ambitions and legitimize their policy agendas through corresponding framing processes.