Could Gorbachev Have Been In on It? : Conspiracy: Analysts debate the rumor. Some say it’s as absurd as an Elvis sighting. Others aren’t so sure.

It is the stuff of a Byzantine Cold War novel, enticing enough to grab the attention of even the most benign conspiracy theorist: Did Mikhail S. Gorbachev orchestrate the coup that almost overthrew him?

It was also enough to arouse an angry response from Blair Ruble, director of Washington’s Kennan Institute. To him and others, the theory is the figment of imaginations overworked by the week’s emotional events, about as likely as Elvis Presley showing up at the Kremlin with guitar in hand.

“It’s absolutely absurd,” Ruble insisted. “It’s exactly like the Elvis sightings--and because of that, no amount of rational thought will erase it.”

While apparently not a burning question among Soviet citizens, the question has entranced some professional Soviet-watchers in the West and, just as surprisingly, some in the Soviet political hierarchy as well.

Former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze told ABC’s “Nightline” program earlier this week that he was curious about a possible Gorbachev role in the coup that failed.

“I have suspicions, but they’re just suspicions, just suspicions,” he said. “I cannot say any more right now without proof, though it’s all very strange. This is all very strange.”

On Friday, too, Shevardnadze was repeating his concerns, if elliptically. “I do have certain questions,” he told Cable News Network.

Gorbachev was confronted with the conspiracy rumors Friday when he appeared before the Supreme Soviet. “This is a very crude attempt to throw some shadows,” he said.

Academics in the West appeared split into two camps: In one, Gorbachev’s explanation of events largely made sense, and inconsistencies could be laid to his still-stricken state of mind. In the other, Gorbachev knew something was up and acceded to it. Despite the attraction of an even meatier conspiracy theory, few argued Friday that the Soviet president engineered the coup from beginning to end.

To some--an admitted minority--the thought of a Gorbachev conspiracy was comfortably within the range of the traditional Soviet art of deception known as maskirovka , one Sovietologist wryly said. And to laymen, something that odd could make sense in a country where illness can mean anything from the flu to a precipitous fall from power.

The most volatile fuel for the conspiracy theory came directly from Gorbachev himself, in his Thursday press conference in which he described, sometimes emotionally, his three days under house arrest in the Crimea.

Among the questions: If Gorbachev’s 32 armed guards remained loyal to him throughout, why was there no conflict, even with fists, with the opposition delegation that notified the president of the coup? If the delegation had its own overwhelming firepower, why didn’t the coup leaders incapacitate Gorbachev’s guards, or at least separate them from him?

If Gorbachev’s contact with the outside world was limited to intercepting Western radio outlets on an ancient shortwave radio, how was he able to describe the press conference given by the collaborators, down to his view of their trembling hands? And how was it so easy to disable the communications linking the leader of the Soviet Union with the outside world?

Conspiracy theorists groped for motives--Gorbachev may have wanted to ferret out disloyal elements in his government, to make himself a hero and to delay the scheduled signing of a treaty that would have lessened his powers. But even those who found Gorbachev’s explanations curious were a bit queasy about raising a fuss.

“I’m at the risk of pointing the finger at someone who may be proven innocent or may not be proven guilty,” said Eugene Rumer, a RAND Corp. Soviet specialist.

“Basically, I think there’s so many loose threads,” he added. “His acknowledged behavior before the coup was so inexplicable or inconsistent. I believe he may have had advance warning or knowledge or complicity (in the coup).”

Rumer’s colleague at RAND, senior analyst Jeremy Azrael, believes that it is “not . . . implausible” to speculate that Gorbachev was confronted before the coup by soon-to-rebel Cabinet members and told that the nation was in dire need of emergency declarations like the ones proffered by the coup committee. When he didn’t act, the scenario goes, the committee did.

“Gorbachev did what he characteristically does, which is waffle so that some people think he’s saying yes, so he’s got deniability, and some think he’s saying no, and he’s got deniability,” Azrael said, explaining the scenario.

“I do not have any evidence in my hands that he said yes,” he said. “But . . . even after you discount the typical Soviet love of conspiracies, it still seems to be plausible.”

Azrael, however, dismissed the notion that Gorbachev took an active role in the coup planning.

President Bush scoffed at rumors of a Gorbachev role, calling them “ridiculous.” And most Soviet-watchers seemed to see it his way.

“Whenever the Soviet Union is involved, we tend to think in terms of conspiracies rather than terms of politics,” the Kennan Institute’s Ruble said. “We also tend to discount the fact that people can be really stupid. The leaders of the coup were really stupid. Why would Gorbachev do it? He’s a big loser in this.”

Richard Staar, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, said Gorbachev’s shaken appearance as he returned to Moscow on Wednesday night convinced him that the Soviet president was reeling from surprise events.

“He was really shaken by this. And his wife was frightened--her hand is paralyzed--the daughter and two grandchildren, they were frightened to death,” Staar said. “You’d have to be a trained actor to give that performance.”

Like it or not, academics suggest that the full story may be difficult to prove--or disprove. Virtually all, however, agreed on one point. Gorbachev, they said, put into power the very hard-liners who fronted the coup and kept them in power despite their vocal mutterings about him.

“Gorbachev,” said Harry Gelman, a senior staff member at RAND, “is ultimately responsible for these people.”