A view shows the building of the US Permanent Mission to the UN Office where the talks on security guarantees between Russia and the United States are held, in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo: AFP

The US and organizations including NATO will hold a series of emergency meetings with Russia this week, beginning with Monday's US-Russia meeting in Geneva. Then it moves on to the Russian-NATO Council in Brussels on Wednesday and ends on Thursday's meeting in Vienna at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 

Russia-US relations as well as Russia-Europe relations continue to be strained by the Ukraine issue, which has been described as a "post-Cold War Cuban missile crisis." The three rounds of talks in this context, like a master match on the big geopolitical chess game, will have a direct impact on the ensuing regional situation.

Before the talks started, the US, Europe and Russia had been blaming one another for a long time, with the US constantly playing up the possibility of a Russian "invasion" of Ukraine, while Russia emphasized the security threat posed to Russia by NATO's eastward expansion. Only with a wider horizon can we see more clearly the context and internal logic of the current crisis in Ukraine.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has promoted rounds of NATO eastward expansion in disregard to Russia's strong opposition, eventually pushing Russia into a corner. If Ukraine joins NATO, the US missiles deployed in Kiev can reach Moscow in just five minutes. The US accuses Russia of "holding a gun pointed to Ukraine's head," while the US is targeting its own missiles at Moscow's heart. In the past 30 years, the US elites have always viewed Russia with the arrogance of a "victor," believing that Russia is the "loser" in the Cold War and deserves to be "punished." In their mind, Russia should be submissively lying on the edge of Europe, being bullied by the US and its allies.

So far, the US and the West have slapped more than 100 sanctions on Russia, sparing no effort to suppress a major power "from a position of strength." Before this dialogue, the US and NATO had warned Russia with a sense of intimidation. In the dictionary of Washington, "respect" is rarely seen. Washington's real intent is to pressure Russia until it surrenders, so as to get rid of this threat to US hegemony for good. 

In a sense, the US has brutally forced Russia to become an "enemy." With this "enemy," Washington can hold Europe closer to itself. While pushing NATO to expand eastward, the US is also hyping Russophobia in Europe. Consequently, relatively new members to NATO are generally hostile to Russia. The anti-Russia sentiment is at a peak in Ukraine, which is not a wise move for the country. Because this will put it at risk between two major powers - but this meets Washington's strategic demands.

Talking about these meetings, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, "We can't go back to a world of spheres of influence" like the one during the Cold War era. However, from South America to Central America, from Southeast Asia to Northeast Asia, which country on earth is ganging up and forming "small circles"? As the Warsaw Pact dissolved and many former Soviet states have tilted toward the West, with some having become NATO members, which country is the one cultivating "spheres of influence"?

To some extent, China can empathize with what Russia is going through. In Europe, Washington is trying its best to contain, suppress, and squeeze out Russia through mechanisms such as NATO; in the Asia-Pacific region, it is trying to pressure China with similar tricks. Perhaps the US' successful experience in the Cold War has made the US overconfident so that the American political elites have taken out their rusted Cold War weapons against the world in a new era. 

Nevertheless, the world has already changed. It will eventually be proven that the infringement of other countries' core interests and the violation of international equality and justice will not bring another "victory" to Washington as it has wished. 

Washington still has deep-rooted hegemonic thinking, but its hegemony is something tough outside but cowardly inside. Therefore, the world has seen a tangled US: It on one hand acts maliciously against other major powers but cannot really give up negotiations on the other hand. As a matter of fact, the US doesn't have much capital to squander on great-power relations; its "position from strength" cannot support its hegemonic ambitions. And the times will not give it such an opportunity either.