Dmitri Peskov - Spokesman for Vladimir Putin HARDtalk

16 murders. That is a summary of the headlines. Now it is time for

HARDtalk. Vladimir Putin, Russia's 21st century tsar is poised to

return to the Kremlin and dominate Russian But what kind of motherland

does he want to build? At home, Putinism is being challenged as

never before by an urban protest movement. On the international

stage, Russia stands accused of siding with the enemies of freedom.

I will be talking to long time Putin aide and spokesman Dmitri

Peskov. Is Russia willing or able A one to start with an issue

pressing upon everybody in the international community, Syria. You

understand the power of the image. It does not look good for Russia to

be the main arms supplier of Syria when you see the security forces

turning their guns on their own civilian populations? You are

asking a question I cannot answer. Vladimir Putin is still president

of the Russian Federation and I am a spokesman for him. We are not

involved in foreign politics. This is a privilege for our President. I

can assure you that Russia is doing nothing that can be treated as a

violation of international law. It should not bother at in the

international community when the country is standing on its own in

its own domestic interests. This is the Premier goal of every country.

I understand your point about being the but spokesman for the Prime

Minister. But during the last couple of months, we have seen

Vladimir Putin speak out on a range of international issues, including

Syria and Iran. If I may just pursue that point. That was during

the campaign, during his capacity as a candidate. But everybody knows

around the world that he is going to be the Russian president. We

want to understand what he thinks is going on in Syria. When it comes

to the weapons, are you suggesting that when he is back in the Kremlin,

he will continue what has been a massive increase in Russian arms

suppliers to Syria that we have seen over the last few years? First

of all, with the coming of a new president at, the Russian policy

will continue in its basics. Because Russia is a serious state.

It cannot change its foreign politics once in ten years or five

years. That is why the basics of Russian foreign policy will

continue. It will continue after Pruden becomes President. He told

the Times yesterday that there was not a special relationship between

the Russian government and the Syrian president. How would you

characterise the relationship between the Russian government and

the Assad regime? The regime is a legitimate regime. He is a

legitimate president of a country. He is legitimate President of Syria

and his take and hear of his citizens. Discussing any acts of

terror, let us say from one side, we have to treat the situation in

balance. We need to tackle both sides. We should not forget that he

is taking tea of his citizens and he is responsible for law and order

in Syria. Certainly, we have known reason not to believe he is taking

measures in order to make sure the law is in order. He how many Syrian

civilians would have to die at the hands of Syrian security forces

before you would no longer describe them as the legitimate leader of

Syria? I cannot really discuss this issue. At the same time, we have to

remember, victims of those terrorists who are acting in

certain cities of Syria. You should treat situations from both angles.

A but you are more aware than I am, that by the time the has any

significance Zairean rebel resistance, the UN had declared

that more than 2,700 Syrians had been killed. They had been killed

by the security forces loyal to the President. I know you know that. It

is not a conflict with two equal sides. I have to repeat, I wish I

could have time and possibilities for watching the situation more

closely. Being a spokesman for the Prime Minister, we have to be more

close to tears -- domestic and economic issues. Specially while we

are living in turbulent economic environment. You have many

responsibilities. One of them is to nurture Russia's image on the

international stage. We have seen much exercise its security Council

veto twice now when it comes to resolutions regarding Syria. That

led the US ambassador to describe Russia's actions alongside China as

disgusting and shameful. There is a real problem, and relations with

the international community and the West over Syria? We sincerely hope

that the international community, we cannot speak about the

international community as a whole. Some Western countries treat Our

position with understanding. We cannot tolerate the statements

assessing our position as you have mentioned about. We totally

disagree with this assessment. Nevertheless, I have no doubt the

Russian Federation will continue to stand on its own national interests.

Let me ask you a more principled question, this relates not just to

your time representing Mr Putin as Prime Minister, but going back to

association with him when he was President as well. Because I

remember well and you do that in 2005, the UN General Assembly

adopted this principle of responsibility to protect, the idea

that no nation could stand on its sovereignty and use that as a

justification for crimes against humanity, and war crimes within its

own borders and expect the rest of the international community to

stand by and watch it happen. Russia did back that notion. His

Russia decided that was a mistake? What kind of mistake? A mistake to

adopt the responsibility to protect. If you are serious about this, you

should apply that principle now in Syria and other nations around the

world. We have to differ the sovereignty of the country with any

possible crimes against humanity. We have to understand who is in

charge to take a decision. What is a crime against humanity and what

is not. What could be treated as evidence of that crime. Whether we

are objective enough in our attitude has to put on both sides

of the issue, every crime that hypothetically could have taken

place in a country. A systematically, it is a complement

-- complicated question. There is no need to simplify it. It only

seems a simple to people on the ground in Syria. The defector from

the Syrian armed forces who told a BBC reporter that he had received

orders to shoot at everything that moved, as civilian or military.

That is evidence, is it not of a government which is ignoring basic

international Maugham's? At the same time, we have evidence about

militant groups, groups of terrorists acting in cities of

Syria, we all witnessed a couple of days ago, terrible acts of terror

in the Syrian capital. That is not the point of my question. Whether

or not militant groups are also violating international law and

norms is not here all the winner comes to judging the Syrian

government. The government led by President Assad. If that was the

point of my answer. I wanted to answer that way. What I want to say

is, international community is tackling this issue very closely.

Russia is a responsible part of international community. We will

stay together with the international community in solving

these problems. And all the international music -- mission will

have a positive result in solving this problem. Russia is ready to do

its utmost to assist with that. Russia is not ready to betray its

own interests and to betray interests of international law.

Russia would never be ready to agree that a group of countries can

do judgments, international judgments instead of international

community. This is what Russia would strongly disagree. We can now

look at Syria in isolation. It is one part of a series of turbulent

times across the Middle East. Some call it the Arab Spring. We saw in

Libya, last year, a Russian government which was opposed to

NATO military intervention. This was based on UN security Council

resolution from 1973. Your boss called it a medieval crusades

clause. Is it the case that as a result of what happened with the

intervention in Libya, Russia does now suspect any UN security Council

move across the world, especially in the Middle East that appears to

the Russians to authorise any sort of intervention. I used suspicious

of that? Russia would like to avoid situations where a wording of

resolution is not sharp enough to avoid misusing of this resolution.

If you agree with me, this is quite an unaffordable statement in terms

of foreign policy for a press secretary of the Russian Prime

Minister. It is not for me to agree or disagree with your words. I am

trying to get inside the mindset of the Russian government and Vladimir

Putin, your boss. In late February, he wrote, the West has Shayan too

much willingness to punish certain countries. He seems to be

characterising what is happening and the calls for intervention in

various countries as part of a Western plot to expand its power

and influence. We all have international law and we are all

members of the international law system. We have the United Nations

and the United Nations security Council. Humankind has never

invented something more responsible for international stability and

international security. We all have to stick to certain rules.

Definitely, we all have to avoid situations that a couple of

countries or a group of countries takes responsibility for ensuring

security instead of international law. There leaves me confused,

moving away from Syria to Iran as to what the Russian position really

is. This again goes back to the time when the Vladimir Putin was

presidents, in the sense that back in 2006, Russia decided to support

the limited sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear

ambitions. Russia supported three rounds of nuclear sanctions from

then. At the same time, Vladimir Putin said on no account would he

support military invention to thwart Iran acquiring a nuclear

bomb. I am confused about what Russia really wants to happen in

Russia wants to see Iran being in close co-operation with

international bodies, including IAEA, in monitoring Iran's nuclear

programme. That we do not have any doubt about right now, that this

programme is a peaceful nature. are supporting the UN sanctions

against Iran, so you have problems with the way they are handling, but

at the same time, you say it even if all they were to acquire a bomb,

we will never countenance any military based intervention to stop

them. We are living in the same region as Iran, the Russian

Federation. We would want to see a stable, peaceful state. We would

never want to see a region torn apart by war. This is our main goal.

We will use any diplomatic and political means at hand it to solve

the problem, and not put muscle at every occasion. That is something

you have accused the Americans and Western allies of doing, inside

your own country as well. We can turn to domestic politics in Russia.

When Vladimir Putin accused demonstrators in the period after

the elections in December, when he accused them of essentially being

in the pay of the West, the word, unacceptable when foreign money is

being pumped into our election process, what evidence did he have?

All reliable and necessary evidence. What? What is the evidence? Again,

we must defend our sovereignty from interference from abroad. What

precise facts can you bring to me that showed that the United States

was leading an effort to interfere with your sovereignty? The United

States was never hide in the process of financing some public

organisations involved in domestic politics. I think you would rather

agree with me that the situation is totally impossible, somewhere in

England, or in the United States, that for example, Russia is

supporting financially some organisations involved in the

medically it -- domestic political processes. It is out a possibility.

But Washington never hides and this fact and they are doing it

officially. So it is not a secret. The way you characterise the NGOs,

the ones that work in Russia, helping to ex-spouse of the values

of democracy without any kind of part to San involvement, I wonder

why you are so fearful of these groups. -- partisan involvement.

are not so fearful. When Putin said those words, as mentioned, he never

meant that all of the people who took part in actions of protest,

that they are being financed. He meant that the Russian NGOs, and

those that are sponsored from abroad, in order to dribble it --

trigger this situation, to provoke the arm rest, his main purpose was

to warn people against being a toy, an instrument in the hands of those

NGOs and personalities. At the end, all the people are our citizens.

You do tend to lock them up if they protest too loudly, even after Mr

Putin's resounding victory in the presidential election. You are

still locking people up for quiet, addressing a crowd without

permission, that would apply to a person, they have -- you have again

proved against other protesters, they are facing new charges. Why

are you so frightened of people who criticised Putin and Russia's

current political system? We are not. You produced a classic example

of misunderstanding. I would rather say that in this case, you are a

victim of propaganda of those people, all the people that you

have mentioned right now. Actually no-one is afraid of them. Why are

you locking them up? Because they violated the law. There is a law in

this country. By addressing a crowd. If you violate the law, if you

gather the crowd, and you start to address the crowd, in a way that

contradicts the laws and regulations, you have to do your

time. It is very simple. Do you think that Mr Putin's third

presidential term, he has to address something of an image

problem. The courts are so quick to stamp out dissidents. But we had

others, senior officials are suspected of involvement in the

death in custody of a lorry a who walked the streets of Moscow

entirely free. The courts do not seem very keen to tackle them. It

is being tackled. By the way, he enjoyed the freedom of expressing

his views during legal activities, dream legal actions of protest. No-

one made any obstacles. No-one took him into custody. He was free to do

that and he enjoyed it 100%. I hope he would recall that. I think he

has seen the back of a prison van more than once and here you know it.

That meant that he ten to violate the law more than once. Back to my

other point, the courts are so eager to use the full force of the

law against people like him, the endemic corruption that so many

Russians, and I think he would acknowledge this, so many different

Russians, NGOs, international aloes, talk about, it is not being tackled

at door. -- analysts. It is a serious problem and we all have to

fight this corruption. We have to fight it systematically. And the

attention of the President, the Prime Minister, that is being

devoted to this problem, it proves that we are determined to fight it.

Four years ago, when he got the presidency, he said he was going to

be worthless in his determination to stamp it out. He has. But they

rate you alongside Nigeria as the 143rd worst, most corrupt country

in the world. I am not sure that the criteria that are they used for

making these tables, it is not good, it is not proper. I'm not sure

whether this criteria as credible or not. I want a couple of brief

thoughts. I mention Dmitry Medvedev. He is supposed to take over as

prime minister when Putin takes over as President. Will that indeed

happen? I can only recall the recent words of Prime Minister

Vladimir Putin, who had acknowledged his intention to

nominate, after he becomes the President, to nominate Dmitry

Medvedev for the prime ministership. So we can assume that will happen.

He has six years, back in the presidency. Would you accept that

he looks more vulnerable now than he did the last time that he won

election to the presidency? The aura of invincibility is gone,

would you accept that? I would rather no. He has got about 64%, it

is more than a confidence four-wood for a politician in our time. --