This study examines how the state linguistically shapes the notion of sacrifice in its political speeches when a security challenge—either actual or perceived—comes to the fore. Through a qualitative analysis of speeches delivered in contexts of peace, crisis, and war, the study shows that sacrifice is articulated differently depending on how the challenge is portrayed. In speeches delivered during an ongoing crisis, sacrifice appears more concrete and shared, expressed through real risk and a genuine sense of collective burden. In speeches delivered in peacetime, by contrast, sacrifice is framed as a principled but more abstract responsibility, grounded in values and institutions without being given the same concrete form.
The study demonstrates that sacrifice attains moral meaning only when its cost is acknowledged as real and shared. This is particularly relevant for the officer profession, which operates at the intersection of political language, military responsibility, and actual risk.