How do leaders use historical analogies in interstate talk? Despite significant scholarly progress in understanding the role of analogical reasoning in international politics, this question remains unexplored. Prior research has focused overwhelmingly on how historical analogies serve as cognitive shortcuts in internal decision-making processes. Meanwhile, the few studies that approach analogical reasoning from a rhetorical perspective have demonstrated that historical analogies may be employed for political purposes to mobilize public support, a finding that to date regrettably has been limited to domestic settings. By developing a theory of the rhetorical use of historical analogies in interstate talk, I aim to fill this research gap. I do so by introducing a novel typology of four kinds of “localized” analogies that are commonly invoked in interstate talk. Being rooted in historical events pertinent to the relevant target audience, it is argued that localized analogies are more likely to achieve cultural congruence and persuasion in interstate talk than non-local ones. Through a comparative qualitative content analysis of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s speeches to foreign legislatures during the first year of the full-scale war in Ukraine, this paper presents theory-consistent empirical evidence of the prevalence of localized analogies in interstate talk and suggests that historical analogies are a powerful rhetorical that may influence international relations in various ways.