This study presents a linguistic analysis of how Russian and American mainstream media and official statements deployed speech acts of accusation during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Using Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1976) as the framework. The study analyzes 50 texts of English-language official statements and media headlines from both sides. In this research utterances are categorized into assertives, expressives, directives, commissives, and declarations, and analyzes their pragmatic force in shaping narratives. The analysis reveals contrasts in tone and rhetorical strategy: U.S. officials and media overwhelmingly use assertive accusations and expressive condemnations to morally indict Russia, while Russian counterparts issue assertive counter-accusations along with defensive justifications. Both sides employ commissives through Americans vowing punitive action and support for Ukraine, while Russians pledging to achieve war aims, and they use directives, from Western calls for Russia to cease aggression to Russian demands that NATO stop expansion. These findings suggest that speech acts of accusation are not just reporting or opinion, rather they perform actions: condemning, justifying, threatening, and gathering support. This research provides novel insight into how language itself becomes a battleground, and concludes that such starkly divergent rhetorical strategies, though serving immediate political aims. Furthermore, it entrench the conflict by obstructing mutual understanding, highlighting the essential role of linguistic analysis in conflict studies.