The article offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of conflictogenic phraseology in Ukrainian and English, functioning within conflict discourse. The study is based on empirical material and demonstrates that phraseological units play a key role in verbalising various types of conflict situations, as they encode behavioural models, cultural perceptions of acceptable and unacceptable confrontation, and the ways in which the actions of interaction participants are evaluated. The article argues that the conflictogenic potential of idioms is determined by their ability to describe, intensify, or interpret different forms of conflict – verbal, physical, psychological, or hybrid. Based on the systematisation of Ukrainian and English phraseological material, four symmetrical lexical-semantic fields are identified: “Verbal conflict”, “Physical conflict”, “Hybrid conflict”, and “Conflict context”. Each field exhibits its own structural organisation, metaphorical foundations, and pragmatic functions. The study shows that Ukrainian phraseology predominantly actualises conflict occurring “here and now”, emphasising the dynamics of quarrelling, emotional tension, and the aggressor’s actions. A significant proportion of the units represents small-scale domestic or situational altercations, as well as combinations of verbal and physical aggression. In contrast, English phraseology more commonly denotes large-scale or intense confrontations, including those with force-based imagery, and is distinguished by the presence of stable expressions that signal the mitigation or resolution of a dispute – patterns not observed in the Ukrainian material. Within the field of “Hybrid conflict”, idioms are identified that combine physical, psychological, and communicative mechanisms of pressure. The “Conflict context” field demonstrates the greatest culturally conditioned asymmetry between the two languages: English phraseology actively encodes avoidance strategies, manipulative schemes, or observer roles, whereas the Ukrainian system more often reflects pre-conflict and post-conflict states, as well as expressions that support or encourage aggressive behaviour. Overall, the study concludes that both languages possess a high potential for the formation of conflictogenic phraseology; however, differences in metaphorical models, the scale of the situations represented, and the pragmatic functions of idioms reflect culturally specific cognitive and communicative norms. The research underscores the importance of incorporating phraseological resources into the analysis of conflict communication and outlines prospects for further classification of idioms into more fine-grained lexical-semantic groups, taking into account authentic contexts of use.