Editor's note: Josef Gregory Mahoney is a professor of politics at East China Normal University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Convened to camouflage a weak president, that is the narrative both sides have spun against each other regarding the recent summit between the leaders of Russia and the United States. Both are said to be projecting power to counter political vulnerabilities at home, and both are said to be suffering from warped worldviews and deep illusions about their current and future roles in geopolitics.

Whatever the merits of such criticism directed at Moscow, at least Russia keeps its story straight through time. However, the messages from Washington run in opposite directions. On the one hand, we are told, Russia is not really a threat to American interests – just a short guy sideshow provoking near-region conflicts of little strategic consequence. Best to ignore him and re-orient NATO and pivot toward Asia. China, the Americans declare, is the real danger, the real evil, the real target of our concerns.

And yet, here we are with Washington worried over a possible invasion of Ukraine. American spies insist Putin is massing troops on the border for attacks that could commence in January. The U.S. uses this as a pretext to send warships into the Black Sea, "refuse negotiations" or reject any "red lines," as Joe Biden said recently, including offering NATO membership to Kyiv. Biden's press secretary Jen Psaki put it more bluntly: "NATO member countries decide who is a member of NATO, not Russia. And that is how the process has always been and how it will proceed."

And yet, here they are with perhaps 90,000 Russian troops or more at Ukraine's border after exercises. Why should the West fear Putin's resolve? Why should it worry about Russian military strength? Is it because it has already seen Russia act firmly with regard to Crimea and separatist regions? Is it because it saw the Russians effectively settle the war in Syria contrary to American ambitions?

Rollout vs. readout

International press reports indicate no breakthroughs were made at the meeting, and none were expected. We haven't yet heard much from Moscow, and the Russian military is still rolling out. The American readout reports discussions focused mainly on Ukraine but also the so-called U.S.-Russia dialogue on strategic stability and ransomware attacks and other regional issues, including Iran.

These add-ons, plus Biden's intention to avoid negotiations and ignore red lines, suggests he isn't taking the supposed Russian threat very seriously, the very threat that his administration is hyping in global media, the threat that he's using to discipline and strategically align European capitals, the threat that Russia says doesn't exist. So, tell us, Joe, is this a real threat or just a game you're playing?

Western reporting is focused on the punishments that Putin will endure if he invades. The U.S. already provides Ukraine with hundreds of millions in funding and weapons and would increase them and reposition offensive NATO forces closer to the Russian border. However, greater emphasis has been placed on potential economic sanctions, essentially threatening to decouple Moscow from the global financial system, perhaps restricting investors from buying Russian debt in secondary markets, possibly preventing Russian banks from foreign currency conversions and disconnecting Russia from SWIFT, the global financial payment system. Above all and once again, Biden is pressuring Berlin to cancel Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany.

All of this should seem familiar because we've seen it all before. Western media assures us this is just a rerun of the Putin playbook, i.e., saber-rattle and extort concessions, including commitments that NATO won't expand to Ukraine and that Russia's gains in Crimea and the separatist areas will persevere.

Perhaps that's true. But that's not the only reason this whole imbroglio seems so familiar. In fact, Biden's playbook against Russia looks a lot like his playbook against China. First, skirt China's borders at sea with U.S. ships and planes. Second, encourage separatists in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Tibet Autonomous Region, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Taiwan region. Third, form a new military alliance, AUKUS, a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, aimed at China, and proliferate nuclear weapons to that end. Make gross, unfounded claims of human rights abuses despite clear evidence to the contrary. Take every opportunity to embarrass and dehumanize, despite decades of inhuman American interventions overseas and a fractured internal political system and society at home.

The imperial or impotent presidency

Where is the logic in all of this? To understand this, we should recall the dialectic of the impotent/imperial presidency. On the one hand, during his run against Donald Trump, Biden's surrogates were still promoting the now largely debunked Steele Dossier that alleged Trump and Putin had conspired to undermine American democracy in the race against Hillary Clinton. When Biden was running against Trump, quite a few voters, including conservatives, supported him because he promised to reverse course and stand up to Putin. So, in some sense, we're just seeing that narrative play out.

On the other hand, Biden's approval ratings are very low in the U.S. Many predict a long cold winter for Democrats and gloomy prospects that they'll fare well next year in the midterm elections, maybe even lose control of Congress. If so, then that will not only imperil Biden's agenda but likewise undermine his reelection efforts. It's long been the case that weak U.S. presidents seek to accumulate power and support through aggressive foreign policies, where they enjoy what the historian Arthur Schlesinger describes as the power of the "Imperial Presidency."

Maybe this is why Biden is trying to convince everyone that Russia and China are evil and maneuvering against them but can't seem to convince most Americans that he's any better. Instead of saying the Biden-Putin duet has been a flop, it's more accurate to say the Biden presidency as a whole has been a flop.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)