The debate between Tucker Carlson and Jacob Rees-Mogg: the distortion of the conservative world. Thank goodness for the British

A comparison of two Conservatives: Tucker Carlson, a figure from the American ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) movement, a pro-Russian and anti-Israel journalist and influencer, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former British Conservative MP and minister, a Catholic and a Brexit supporter, who is now also a presenter on GB News, the so-called ‘British Fox’. Carlson visited Rees-Mogg’s home for an interview; they discussed the Russian threat, the defence of Ukraine, NATO, freedom of expression, and the UK’s involvement in the First and Second World Wars. Carlson, who prides himself on asking ‘uncomfortable’ questions, persistently asks Rees-Mogg why the UK ‘wants to go to war with Russia’ and whether it was really worth London’s while to fight in the two world wars. At one point, the Briton tells the American: ‘You’re verging on defending Hitler’. We are publishing a few excerpts from this conversation, which is well worth watching in full, as it shows how and to what extent the American right has changed, how consistent and liberal the British right has remained (on foreign policy, even in alliance with the Labour opposition), and what kind of distortion Trumpism has inflicted on America’s role in the world. 

Tucker Carlson (TC): Why would Putin want to threaten Britain?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (JRM): Well, he’s threatening you. Why?

TC: I’m wondering the same thing.

JRM: Why did you try to poison people in Salisbury? Why are your submarines prowling near our undersea cables?

TC: Do you have any idea why?

JRM: I think he wants to reaffirm the power of Russia, which, in many respects, is now a nation in decline: its economy has been in trouble for years, ever since the decline of the USSR. It has lost a significant portion of its territory: if you look at history, from the Romanovs’ rise to power right up to the collapse of the USSR, Russia was expanding for the majority of those years. Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Russia suddenly shrank. It appears that some Russians experience this as a disgrace and as a betrayal of Russia’s historical destiny. Hence the actions in Georgia and Ukraine.

TC: It is clear that Russia, as a nuclear-armed power, wants a sphere of influence. But this still does not explain why Russia would want to pick a fight with Britain. Its economy is much larger than Britain’s.

JRM: No, no, no, it doesn’t have a larger economy than the UK’s. It has a smaller economy. It has a larger army.

TC: But it’s a much larger economy. It has far greater wealth and far more resources. It has a much larger manufacturing sector.

JRM: Its GDP is lower than that of the United Kingdom. Around two-thirds.

TC: GDP is not the only indicator of the state of an economy.

JRM: It is an important indicator. Russia is an economic failure. It could have a huge economy, but instead it has a small one because it is corrupt and has failed to exploit its resources effectively. And so, even though the Russian population is much larger than ours, its per capita GDP is so much lower that Russia’s total GDP is less than that of the United Kingdom (...).

TC: I don’t agree, but the fact remains that you haven’t explained why it would be in Russia’s interests to go to war with the UK. Do you think they want to take over your territory?

JRM: Russia has already shown itself to be aggressive, as we saw with the invasion of Ukraine, which was not only illegal under international law but also breached a specific agreement between Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ukraine: in exchange for Ukraine renouncing its nuclear weapons, Russia and the other signatories would guarantee the preservation of its territorial integrity.

TC: We can discuss how that war began. It seems to me, however, that we are sidestepping the question I am now asking you for the third time: why should all this mean that Russia is threatening the United Kingdom? Do you believe in causality? Do you think there is a reason why Russia has it in for the United Kingdom?

JRM: Why do dictators attack? Because they can.

TC: (...) Do you have any idea why? From the Russian point of view, you are funding a war against Russia. And so you are belligerents in that war.

JRM: Russia has invaded Ukraine.

TC: But this isn’t Ukraine.

JRM: This is the United Kingdom. That’s right. And what the United Kingdom is doing is supporting Ukraine and defending its territorial integrity. (...) Do you believe in the territorial integrity of nation states?

TC: In mine, certainly. I’m not sure that the territorial integrity of someone else’s state is worth risking my life for

JRM: Even when America guaranteed it? America did. Do you consider that decision wrong? The quid pro quo was that Ukraine would retain its nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that Ukraine should have kept its nuclear arsenal? (...) The United States entered into an agreement with Ukraine, Russia and the United Kingdom under which Ukraine’s territorial integrity would be inviolable on condition that Ukraine renounced its nuclear weapons.

TC: So is there a treaty that obliges the United States to wage war against Russia?

JRM: No, it doesn’t force him to fight a war. So what he says is irrelevant. If he thinks America has no interest in this matter, then he shouldn’t have signed the treaty, and Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons.

TC: My only point is that we are now on the brink of a nuclear exchange. And the question is: why? I don’t understand why it is in Britain’s interests to be at war with Russia.

JRM: I maintain that if we are prepared for war, war becomes less likely. That is the very foundation of deterrence.

TC: But if you stop fighting the war, you’ll be less likely to be hit by nuclear weapons.

JRM: Oh, no, that’s not true. If we don’t support Ukraine, if we allow Russia to take it over, then it will move on to its next target.

TC: Why is it up to the UK to decide whether or not Russia will take over Ukraine?

JRM: Because it is very much in our national interest and, in fact, in that of the United States as well.

TC: What do you mean?

JRM: Because the fundamental element of the world order is the integrity of nation states. If all nation states can fall prey to the first country that wants to take them over, then why shouldn’t China take over Taiwan tomorrow? Don’t you care that nation states are being conquered?

TC: The question is whether I can do anything about it, and at what cost to my people.

JRM: It can be done if you show strength. And I fear that what the West has done with regard to Russia has been to show weakness: the agreements on Crimea concluded by Germany and France led Putin to believe he could do as he pleased. Then he miscalculated with regard to Ukraine and discovered that the West would not play along. And it is very important not to allow dictators to miscalculate.

On the Second World War and Hitler

TC: Did the United Kingdom benefit from fighting the Second World War?

JRM: We did the right thing.

TC: Is it a better country than it used to be?

JRM: For defeating Hitler? Yes.

TC: So the UK is a better country today. A healthier country.

JRM: Otherwise, we’d be speaking German today.

TC: Who cares? There are plenty of people in Britain who can’t speak English. It would be nice if at least one European language were spoken in your country.

JRM: No, I don’t see any advantage in speaking German over any other language. We want to speak English. Thank you very much.

JRM: (...) I’m very surprised that this borders on defending Hitler. I don’t think that’s what he’s trying to do.

TC: Yes, I suppose I’m secretly a Nazi. No, that’s not true, I’m not a secret Nazi.

JRM: I’m reassured.

(The Foglio website features the full Italian transcript of the conversation broadcast on 2 October)