What’s that Tucker doing in Moscow?

The other day I suggested that Tucker Carlson was in Moscow to interview Putin, which frankly didn’t involve any oracular powers. Why else would he go there at this time? To watch Spartacus at the Bolshoi?

Then I ventured a few other guesses about the possible content of the forthcoming encounter, and again that was stating the blindingly obvious. Carlson is a Putin admirer of long standing (which I illustrated with a compendium of his panegyrics), and he both buys and sells on the Kremlin version of the on-going war.

Anyway, Carlson’s televised address yesterday has turned conjecture into fact. “Two years into a war that’s reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed,” he said. “They have no real idea what’s happening in this region. But they should know, they’re paying for much of it in ways they might not fully perceive.”

Now, I’m not a regular consumer of American reporting, but even the snippets I have seen show that there is certainly no dearth of information on the war. If “most Americans are not informed”, it’s because they have no interest in this particular subject.

Whatever Carlson does in the interview is unlikely to change that state of selective ignorance. So exactly what void is he proposing to fill?

Not to repeat myself, I can again refer you to my Monday article. In Carlson’s view, what Americans are suffering from isn’t the amount of information but its content, which is generally pro-Ukrainian. Putin’s propaganda machine seems short of outlets in the mainstream Western media, and that’s an outrage Carlson will try to correct.

In passing, Carlson tried to come across as a selfless, heroic victim of the Democrats’ attempts to suppress his selfless, heroic attempts to shill for Putin. “But this time, we came to Moscow anyway,” he said, “and did not take money from any government or group.”

The implication is that the mainstream media aren’t so disinterested. It’s that dastardly Joe Biden who pays them to libel Vlad, the strong leader Tucker (and his friend Donald) admires. Moreover, the government censors truthful accounts of the war, which is to say those coming from Putin through Carlson et al.

But not this time: Elon Musk has “promised not to suppress or block this interview.” Since Musk is another self-proclaimed admirer of Putin, no surprises there.

Anyway, all that is on the surface, and I wouldn’t waste your time and mine repeating what I said two days ago unless I had something interesting to add. So I do: more conjecture. This time, however, it isn’t my own.

The following version is being discussed in the Russian émigré press, and I find it plausible enough to share with you. According to that hypothesis, in addition to his journalistic mission, Carlson is acting as Trump’s emissary to Putin.

This stands to reason: it would be politically suicidal for Trump to establish a direct contact with the Kremlin, and Carlson is his friend and trusted ally. Some commentators are even mooting the possibility that Trump may choose Carlson as his running mate.

So what kind of message could that be? Any hypothesis, taught Aristotle, should start from known facts. In that spirit, let’s rely on that time-honoured starting point.

Fact 1: Trump’s main (only?) concern at the moment is winning the presidential election.

Fact 2: Trump has said it a thousand times if he has said it once that Biden’s vacillating policy towards the Ukraine war will conflagrate the world. Trump himself, by contrast, would end that war within days or hours, can’t remember which, thereby saving the world from nuclear annihilation. If he can be seen to be as good as his word, Trump will not only win the election at a canter, but will also gain vast powers to carry out whatever plans he has.

Fact 3: Trump isn’t omnipotent. He may put pressure on Putin or, more likely, Zelensky to stop firing, but he can’t bring peace without their cooperation. Yet neither Zelensky nor Putin will want to end the war as it now stands. For different reasons, that would spell suicide for both of them.

Fact 4: Since Trump has a stronger relationship with Putin, he’d be more likely to choose Vlad as a partner in any ‘deal’ he may concoct – and we know that Trump’s faith in the power of a mutually beneficial transaction is unshakable.

Fact 5: Not only Putin, but also Trump and any number of influential commentators, see the Ukraine as a proxy of NATO in this war. If so, then NATO has a vested interest in an outcome strengthening its short-term position in Europe, or at least not weakening it too much.

These facts act as the building blocks of the hypothesis I’ve mentioned, and the resulting edifice looks sturdy enough to withstand quite a few slings and arrows:

Putin may force NATO’s hand by conquering the three Baltic republics and issuing yet another ultimatum to the West. Either you end the war in the Ukraine on Putin’s terms, or else. Since the Baltics are NATO members, the West will certainly want to respond in kind. But how?

We can safely disregard the possibility of a strategic nuclear response, for obvious reasons. NATO’s counterattack has to be conventional, and the alliance certainly has the wherewithal to rout the invading army. But not instantly.

It would take at least six months to form a coalition, mobilise and equip an expeditionary corps, deploy it at the frontline. Meanwhile, the US elections are getting closer.

Trump would crank up the volume of his I-told-you-so campaign. He told you ‘Sleepy Joe’ would bring the world to the brink of a major war, didn’t he? And he was right. But Trump also told you he could stop that war and he’d be proved right again. As long as you vote the right way.

A Trump landslide would follow, and peace talks with Putin immediately thereafter. And what do you know, Donald would go down in history as one of the peacemakers who are, as we know blessed – in this case with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump would get the Baltics back peacefully, but on Putin’s terms: a corridor to Kaliningrad, recognition of Russia’s conquest of the Crimea and other parts of the Ukraine, a solemn undertaking never to accept any former Soviet republics into NATO. The public by that time would have been so scared of a world war, it would demand that Trump accept the terms he wanted all along.

And the Baltics? NATO would be welcome to them, in their new, neutered state.

In that scenario, the deal would work a dream for both Trump and Putin. The Ukraine would suffer, but her plight would be seen as strictly a sub-plot to the real drama of saving the world from a holocaust.

Yes, the ‘deal’ could work, but only if Putin and Trump synchronised their timing. If Putin moved too early, NATO would have enough time before 5 November to defeat the new aggression, and Biden would go into the election with the halo of a victor. Too late, and American voters wouldn’t have enough time to get really terrified.

Late spring, early summer would be perfect: NATO would be in no position to mount a decisive counterattack before the election, the threat of a world war would be at its peak. In comes Trump, riding his white horse and wearing the white hat of the man who saved the world.

Could it be that this is the message Carlson is conveying to Putin? This sounds plausible to me, sufficiently so to put the hypothesis before you. We’ll see one way or the other before long. Meanwhile, brace yourself for Carlson’s fawning… sorry, I mean truthful interview.