Pre-invasion narratives: how the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine were constructed as logical and righteous

Abstract Invasions are narrated. They are narrated afterwards, when it comes to the construction of their meaning and legacy, and they are narrated in advance, when their logic and supposed necessity are first established. In fact, invasions—notwithstanding their very real and horrific physical and social consequences—cannot be fully understood without studying the stories that are told about them. In this paper we are interested in pre-invasion narratives; in the narratives that produce, in ideal typical ways, the identities and rationalities behind the activity ex-ante . Theoretically, we will set forth an understanding of narratives as historical, relational, and productive and as shaping the bounds of possible action. Empirically, we study the US-American and Russian pre-invasion narratives and reconstruct how the invasions of Iraq (2003) and Ukraine (2022) were narrated as logical and righteous. Approaching pre-invasion narratives as Weberian ideal type, we show how such narratives produce: (1) the social identities of the actors involved; (2) their perceived relations; and (3) the supposed righteous or principled grounds on which invasions are rationalised. In the discussion and conclusion, we reflect on the value of a narrative approach and the construction and analysis of ideal types for political science more broadly.