In the heated polemic that has escalated between Russia and the United States over the Georgian conflict in the last month, one man has been increasingly singled out by politicians in Moscow. US presidential candidate John McCain, they say, is deliberately playing up the tensions in order to improve his standing among voters with leftover memories of the Cold War. That the Republican senator developed a penchant for outspoken criticism against Vladimir Putin's administration long before his nomination only stoked suspicions in Moscow regarding McCain's real agenda. But polemic is one thing; policy is quite another.

While nerve-wracking for some politicians and analysts, McCain's Russia-bashing opens up a more serious question here in Moscow: how will America's policy towards Russia change after November 5? If McCain wins, will his bite hurt as much as his bark? And will that policy differ all that much under a Republican president rather than a democratic one?

Firebrands on Both Sides

­While not always naming names, Russians too have become outspoken in blaming U.S. politicking for the recent souring of relations. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin cast doubt on McCain in a recent interview with CNN, where he linked the conflict in Georgia with the presidential race.

"The suspicion would arise that someone in the United States created this conflict on purpose to stir up the situation and to create an advantage for one of the candidates in the competitive race for the presidency in the United States."

Others have been more direct. In his comments to The Moscow News, Dmitri Rogozin, the no-nonsense NATO ambassador once labeled a "firebrand" for his nationalist views, specifically pointed to McCain as one of the likeliest figures to benefit from America's tough stance on Russia.

But if Russians only began registering McCain as a threat this summer, the senator from Arizona has been putting Russia in the spotlight since 2003, analysts say.

McCain has made it clear to Americans that, unlike President George Bush, he saw three letters when he looked into Putin's eyes: "K-G-B."

In spring of 2006, he contested Bush's assessment of Putin as "straightforward and trustworthy."

 "Look, we all say things that are stupid," he told NBC's Meet the Press. "I'm sure that the president has re-evaluated his position in light of Putin's recent actions." It was then that the future presidential candidate shed light on how he would deal with Russia. "I think that we've got to respond in some way... The glimmerings of democracy are very faint in Russia today, and so I would be very harsh."

In a June, 2007 interview with BusinessWeek, McCain called Russia a "great disappointment" and a "KGB oligarchy."

"Putin wants to restore the days of the old Russian empire, and he continues to repress democracy, human rights and freedom of the press. Mysterious assassinations are even taking place. If oil were still $10 a barrel, Mr. Putin would not pose any kind of a threat." Later in his statement, McCain revealed that one of the chief grievances was Russia's "failure to assist us in trying to rein in Iranian nuclear ambitions."

As a presidential candidate, McCain started outlining just how tough he was going to get on the Russians.  Last March, he said, "Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible." This included a rather solid stance on Georgia's entry into the military organization, an issue that has been at the heart of the latest conflict in the country, since in order to become a NATO member a country needs solid borders - something Georgia can hardly boast with the de-facto autonomy of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As punishment for Russia's own "punishment" of Georgia's military action in its separatist republics, McCain suggested kicking Russia out of the Group of Eight.

What to Expect

While Russians won't get to vote for either McCain or Barack Obama, it's hardly surprising that they are closely following the presidential race. Obviously, they're more interested in McCain's statements on Russia than they are in Bristol Palin's pregnancy or whether or not a pig with lipstick is still a pig. More specifically, they wonder if McCain will deliver on his tough-guy rhetoric once he gets into the White House. Some TV commentators even opt for a bit of wishful thinking, announcing that McCain doesn't stand a chance against the highly articulate Obama.

Whatever the chances of McCain winning the White House, analysts are careful about making the jump from his words to his actions.

Part of the question rests on the legacy of relations with Russia in a Republic or Democratic White House. Some historians believe that relations were better under republicans such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But all that depends on one's definition of "better."

Anatoly Utkin, director of International Studies Center of US and Canada Studies Institute, believes that Democratic presidents have proven unpredictable in their treatment of Russia. "We had a lot of hope for Jimmy Carter," says Utkin, a Russian expert who has studied U.S. politics for half a century. "But it was he who started lecturing us about how we should live, what our immigration policy should be, what our party system should be like. Where Nixon and Reagan were concerned, we had great relationships with them. Republicans have more definite, more clearly outlined policies [and aims.] For us, it's more understandable."

Others question whether these "good relations" have actually benefitted Russia.

"There's a point of view that the Republicans have been able to agree with the Russians better than the Democrats," says Ivan Safranchuk, an associate professor at the Moscow State Foreign Relations Institute and a former head of the Moscow office of the Center for Defense Information. "But the Republicans certainly weren't any nicer to the Russians. After 1982, Reagan took a very tough stance on Afghanistan." That Republican White Houses signed more agreements with Soviet Russia says more about Republican aims than about the quality of the relations, says Safranchuk.

In that light, it is hard to anticipate where exactly McCain will take Russian policy if he makes it into the White House.

"At first it appeared that McCain was playing into lobbying interests," Safranchuk says. Indeed, last month reports surfaced that Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor, was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. According to the AP report, Scheunemann lobbied McCain on 49 occasions between 2004 and 2007. But Safranchuk cites "rumors" that there were other lobbyists. "Based on the fact that McCain and [late Democrat representative Thomas] Lantos both suddenly started bashing Russia around 2003, there were rumors that they were being lobbied by Yukos. It's impossible to prove, but the timing is notable." Russian authorities had launched a criminal investigation against the oil giant on charges of fraud and tax evasion in the fall of 2003.

"In light of that, it appeared that once McCain stops [being lobbied] by Georgian interests, he will take a more moderate view. But lately, I've personally begun to doubt that. Perhaps we are dealing not with a realist, but with a dogmatist. In that case, Russia could only be either a friend or a foe to McCain. With Obama, there would be room for more neutral relations."

Others think the rhetoric is purely campaign material.  Peter Lavelle, a political commentator at the pro-Kremlin Russia Today channel, doesn't believe U.S. policy towards Russia will change in any significant way.

"McCain caught on to this issue of making Russia look like an enemy to make him look strong on foreign policy," he told The Moscow News. "It's easy to figure out why - from the American perspective, Russia has gone from an enemy to an ambiguous player to an enemy again. It's convenient to show his foreign policy credentials by vilifying Russia. It sells. It's easily understood by the American electorate. McCain remembers the Cold War, he remembers the Soviet Union."

Utkin, meanwhile, believes that there is simply much more to foreign policy than rhetoric. "Bush, for instance, started out as someone who seemed to take a soft stance on foreign policy. Sept. 11 changed all that. Nixon was an animal, but that didn't keep him from meeting with Brezhnev."

While pointing to the friendly relationship between Bush and Putin, Utkin explained that some of the policies - like NATO expansion - did not necessarily originate with the American president. "The Americans claim that they have no interest in Poland joining NATO, but that it's the Polish diaspora in Michigan and Illinois that's pushing this policy through. There is a bit of truth in that."

"It's not the person who determines the political course, but the events," he says. And only time will tell how global developments will affect the future American president's actions towards Russia. 

By Anna Arutunyan