Vladimir Putin's characterization of the Soviet Union's collapse as the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" prompts critical examination. Was this statement merely an assessment of a historical event, or did it serve as a directive for shaping political agendas? This inquiry underscores the significance of historical narratives in the realm of statecraft, where governments frequently employ them to rationalize (geo)political objectives, foster international partnerships, and sway public opinion at home and abroad.Governments wield interpretive frameworks laden with provocative textual strategies, often framing historical events through the prisms of morality and cultural memory to resonate with their audiences. Within this context, the crafting of emotionally charged strategic historical narratives assumes paramount importance. Semiotic cultural psychology emerges as a vital tool in dissecting how the Kremlin propagates divergent narratives concerning Ukrainians, oscillating between portraying them as Nazis and brethren. This dichotomy serves a unified strategic communicative aim: to condition the populace for impending conflicts.Our analysis delves deeper into the mechanics of this phenomenon, exploring how the persistent portrayal of threats and instability lays fertile ground for the activation of affective semiosis. This mechanism simplifies and polarizes solutions to perceived instability accompanying conflicts, thereby influencing public perception and shaping geopolitical discourse. Through a multidisciplinary lens, we illuminate the intricate interplay between historical narratives, psychological manipulation, and geopolitical agendas, shedding light on the complex dynamics shaping contemporary international relations.