While Republican candidate John McCain takes a firm anti-Russian stand, the Democratic Party's Barack Obama is more neutral on the matter and calls for restraint from both Georgia and Russia. At the heart of the matter is the perpetual debate over foreign policy and Western energy interests in the region as well as U.S. military support for Georgia.

Across The Pond examines other reasons for the differences in approach. The blog run by Deutsche Welle also solicits the opinion of its readers.

What's the reason for the different reactions by McCain and Obama? As Martin writes, the McCain camp sees a “commander-in chief opportunity” for their candidate. But, adds Martin, Obama's team also sees an opportunity: To show that McCain is beholden once again to lobbying interests. His foreign policy adviser Randy Scheuneman lobbied for Georgia from 2003 until recently.

But what do you think? Who has the better argument on the Russia-Georgia conflict McCain or Obama?

Making the question a political hot potato is the question of U.S. foreign policy. The Washington Note clearly blames the U.S. for the events in motion today.

When Kosovo declared independence and the US and other European states recognized it — thus sidestepping Russia's veto in the United Nations Security Council — many of us believed that the price for Russian cooperation in other major global problems just went much higher and that the chance of a clash over Georgia's breakaway border provinces increased dramatically.

[…]

It is possible that Condoleezza Rice's July 10th visit to Tbilisi and joint press conference with Saakashvili was interpreted by him that American power and resolve were firmly behind Georgia and its intention to reassert control over the autonomous provinces. The Georgian president miscalculated about American power in the world today and our resolve to take on Russia directly — no matter how much the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt and Anne Applebaum would like to see the situation differently.

While the seeds of this conflict between Georgia and Russia had been planted long ago, the U.S. helped engineer events that are now undermining its own interests and the global perception of American power.

Other bloggers are also starting to comment on the positions of the two U.S. presidential candidates. The Carpetbagger Report says that McCain's position is alarming.

Obama, calling for restraint and condemning the “outbreak of violence,” also criticized Russia for having “invaded Georgia’s sovereign” and having “encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty.” Obama’s line was largely consistent with that of the Bush White House, the European Union, NATO, and a series of European powers.

John McCain took a different line, which, as Smith noted, “put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush’s first term.”

[…]

Wait, would-be presidents should appreciate nuance when dealing with an international crisis? Credible candidates should be able to recognize gray areas in complex parts of Eastern Europe? Thoughtful would-be leaders need not to rush to view the world as a series of good guys and bad guys?

[…]

Let’s be clear: if McCain the Candidate is a reliable indicator of what we can expect from McCain the President, the presumptive Republican nominee would apparently be anxious to exacerbate the burgeoning war, and antagonize Russia.

There’s a lot going on right now, but this is a very important development in the presidential campaign. Ben Smith characterized this as a “true ‘3 a.m. moment’” for the presidential candidates. And at this point, McCain is once again looking pretty scary.

Donklephant also sides with Obama.

Obama sides with Georgia, but takes a more diplomatic stance and is carefully to not vilify Russia…

[…]

McCain is much more pointed and has no problem making Russia the bad guy…

[…]

Personally, I’m in favor of the Obama approach, because Georgia’s hands certain aren’t clean in all of this, and even the Bush administration has stated as much…

[…]

Long story short, Obama’s approach gives us more flexibility to negotiate with Russia, while McCain’s draws a line in the sand with empty threats that Russia could easily ignore. Why? Because there’s virtually no chance we’ll stick our necks out for a country like Georgia…not when they tried to capture the capital of South Ossetia, but have since been pushed back by Russia’s overwhelming military might. This is a VERY local skirmish, and I can guarantee you that Americans want absolutely NO part of it.

Blogger Interrupted also uses the crisis in Georgia to argue the case for an Obama presidency.

[…] Georgia could become a microcosm of the foreign policy debate this year - a Bush-McCain policy, dominated by knee jerk platitudes, vs. the diplomatic seriousness of Barack Obama, dominated by an increasingly obvious instinct to negotiate. The consequences in the Caucasus could be far reaching, and be yet another repeat of cowboy diplomacy spinning out of American control.

[…]

Did I mention that both Armenia and Azerbaijan border Iran? And oh yeah, the main pipeline moving Azeri oil to market goes through Georgia.

Dominoes could fall in the Caucasus rapidly, and with a lot of blood, and inflationary effects on the price of oil, if the US plays the cards it is dealt the way John McCain seeks to play them. Even the Bush administration, in weary lame-duck status, sees this differently than John McCain, their statement being similar to Obama’s.

Bottom line, this situation requires clear-eyed and urgent diplomacy to make it stop. If it doesn’t stop soon, no one can predict where the end game lies. John McCain may need to shore up his base by pandering to the Instapundit democracy-as-tonic wannabes, but it will not save anyone’s democracy, and may imperil democracy in places other than Georgia.

And Republican spawned, unpredictable end games sure have gotten us far, haven’t they?

The Elephant Bar disagrees and says that conflict between Russia and Georgia exposes Obama's weakness in times of an international crisis.

Seize the moment. Expose to the American people the incredible shrinking stature of the man who would be POTUS in times of war. He has nothing to say and knows nothing of how we find ourselves in this situation. […]

Do not get me wrong. McCain is no novice to the region and has not always been right in his decisions. […] Now, I find myself in the awkward position presented by the binary world of American politics in having to choose between a man that does not have a clue and one who has made decisions where I disagreed.

We have committed the United States to supporting freedom and democracy in parts of the world where there has been little of either. Georgia is where that decision has led us. We have trained them, armed them and encouraged their movement into Nato. Russia is now striking back. Georgia is the new Kosovo. What happens in Georgia will have unknown consequences to Europe and the United States for a generation. […]

Prairie Pundit simply says that South Ossetia exposes Obama's “wimpy side.”

I know Obama is following he same posture as the Bush administration. But isn't he the guy that says we need change?

Meanwhile, The Russia Blog simply says that “McCain's Wrong on Russia… And So Is Obama.”

Cross posted on Global Voices Online.

Primarily this is because of one reason — recognition of the 1915 massacre of ethnic Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey which most historians consider to be the first Genocide of the 20th Century. Commemorated every 24 April, recognition of the Armenian Genocide has become a key issue for the Armenian authorities in Yerevan and especially for the country's large and powerful diaspora.

The issue is not new, with almost every U.S. presidential candidate promising to recognize the massacre, deportation or assimilation of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population as Genocide in past elections, but failing to do so once in office. However, with recent albeit stalled momentum towards a related resolution in the U.S. Congress last October, many Armenians at home and abroad believe that Barack Obama might actually follow through with his campaign promise.

In response, some Azerbaijanis and Turks set up their own anti-Obama Facebook Group. One member, Sonya Reynet, explains why.

In order to garner votes from one and a half million people of Armenian origin living in the United States, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stepped up their rhetoric regarding the Armenian Genocide Resolution 106 in the House and the Senate. They reiterated their “commitment” to the recognition of Armenian Genocide by the United States while at the same time condemning Turkey and Azerbaijan as well as siding with Armenia for the Armenian occupation of the Nabarno-Karabagh territory. 

Yet, not everyone is convinced. Despite promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide from both Republican and Democratic candidates in the past, none followed through with their promises. The reality of geopolitics once in office was not lost on Davut Suicmez.

Being a politician and being the president of US are totally different. Even he talks about the Armenian allegations right now he will see the reality if he becomes president. Current president Bush promised Armenians for the same claims on his first run for presidency on 2000. But now he is totally against it. I guess they reborn with a new brain even smarter after becoming the pres… 

Maybe it's for this reason that other Azerbaijanis decided to set up their own Facebook Group in support of Obama. Ironically, they argue that such a candidate does represent change, and this even goes as far as eventually changing his mind on issues such as the Genocide and the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh.

Azerbaijanis all over the world support Barack Obama. He can bring the CHANGE we belive in!The planet needs CHANGE, USA needs CHANGE and Azerbaijan needs CHANGE!We also believe that he will CHANGE his position in issues concerning Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. WE support him because we believe that he can also CHANGE! The power of CHANGE is limitless, once you discover it! 

Interestingly, given the track record of past presidents of whatever political denomination, Yerevan-based Armenia Discovered appears to suspect that history will be doomed to repeat itself.

US presidentation candidate sen. Barack Obama tells America deserves a president who is able to tell truth about Armenian Genocide and any other genocides. Obama critisizes Bush administration position in Armenian Genocide Recognition, claiming his administration is going to solve the problem.Anyhow most of the US presidents of the recent times, including Georgia W. Bush used the genocide adoption factor during election campaign, but till now no action is taken. 

Even so, and bound to encourage Armenians, disappointment comes from the American husband of one Turkish woman who says that his letter to Obama's campaign team on the issue was effectively ignored. Whether Obama actually personally read the letter is debatable. Jeff Martens was not impressed by the response.

I sent him two letters in the last past 6 months concerning Turkey’s dilemma ”the so-called genocide”.However, two days ago, finally, I received a mail from him telling me how important his presidency would be for this country and asking me to support him by my contributions for his campaign by Aug.30th not mentioning anything on the genocide issue and nothing about Turkey, no concerns or whatsoever. All he is showing me is the ways of payment and he needs the money by Aug. 30th. 

Meanwhile, even if the likelihood of recognition of a tragic past is uncertain even in the event of an Obama victory, many Armenians consider that there are other issues of relevance, and not least as they pertain to the conflict with oil-rich Azerbaijan. In particular, they point to the Republican party's reliance on links to, and donations from, large multinational oil companies.

The policies pursued by Senator McCain would ensure that the U.S. remains a hostage to nations, such as Azerbaijan, which have large oil and gas reserves but are major human rights violators and remain sources of regional instability.”It would be more of the same with a McCain Administration in the White House. The Arizona Senator would 's as he has for the better part of the last three decades - continue supporting big oil companies that profit from high gas prices and are pouring billions of dollars into countries like Azerbaijan, which lack the basic principles of human rights,” said Areen Ibranossian Chairperson of Armenians for Obama. 

To date, however, there has been little other discussion among ethnic Armenians at home and abroad on other issues. And for now at least, the Azerbaijani blogosphere and online community appears even quieter.