Dmitry Peskov, Spokesman for Vladimir Putin HARDtalk

Depending on who you believe, Russia's escalating military

intervention in Syria is a game intervention in Syria is a game

changing this for the forces of legitimacy in the face of terrorism

or a foolish gamble which were further destabilise Syria and

backfire on the Kremlin. My guest today is chief spokesman for

President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov. Does Russia's desire to sure

up the Assad regime risk a dangerous new confrontation with the United

States? Dmitry Peskov in Moscow, welcome to

the programme. Thank you, hello. Let's start in Syria. We have seen

more than three weeks of bombing by more than three weeks of bombing by

your air force in Syria, we have seen a a few cruise missiles let off

as well. Would you say military intervention is going away you had

hoped? First of all, it is intervention, it is to support the

Syrian army in their struggle with tender and organisations that are

occupying the majority of the territory of the Syrian republic.

Moscow. She says the Russians are Moscow. She says the Russians are

not primarily fighting Islamic State but in fact other opposition groups.

The main goal is clearly supporting ground offensives by the Syrian

army. Would you agree? I would agree in the part that says we are

supporting the Syrian army. We are supporting the Syrian army. We are

supporting the Syrian army and in your introduction you said there was

a time to back-up the regime of Assad in Syria. Now, it is not. It

is an attempt to sue Syria from terrorists and extremist

organisations. Of course, there are lots of words and analysis about

balanced opposition or smart opposition. Unfortunately, all our

partners have failed up until now to identify a serious opposition that

is now linked with terror, links with organisations like I -- Islamic

State and Al-Qaeda. It is important to save Syria's editorial and

political integrity so the region including the bordering countries do

terror. To clarify, Dmitry Peskov, terror. To clarify, Dmitry Peskov,

are you saying all rebel forces in Syria who are fighting the Assad

regime are terrorists and therefore targets for your air force? The

great majority of serious forces that are really in danger or Syria

and a danger for all of us are really terrorists. So, the Free

Syrian Army which is backed by the United States and other groups, they

the Russian air force? Not the Russian air force? Not

necessarily. Let's remember... Do you remember pictures of a soldier

eating the heart of a Syrian soldier? I think that all of us

would remember those terrible photos and video also exists, and the guy

who was eating the heart was a guy from the Syrian army that you have

mentioned, so it is not a solid unit. It is not an organised army.

It consists of various groups and we cannot be sure that all of them are

devoted to the idea of fighting terror. But it is interesting that

the breakdown of missions flown by your air force, Reuters news agency

agency just dead data on your own ministry of defence and it shows

that 80% of the bombings are aimed at groups and territory not held by

the so-called Islamic State, so it is clear that the Islamic State

group, which the rest of the world group, which the rest of the world

threat in Syria today, is really not threat in Syria today, is really not

a priority at all for you. That is a very primitive approach to speak

only about the Islamic State army. There are tens and tens of other

very dangerous groups. It's illogical to say that if you're not

bombing Islamic State, you are doing wrong. I repeat, there are lots,

there is a mixture of terrorists and extremist groups there and they are

all opposing the Syrian army, the legitimate Syrian Army. You have to

support the Syrian Army. For example, the America coalition. They

have bombed there for many years. I not debating the result, I am

witnessing it. Two thirds of Syrian territories are in control of

Islamic State. Russian military forces have been doing their support

job for a couple of weeks so it is job for a couple of weeks so it is

early to think about results but we see the first signs of successful

offensives by the Syrian Army and hopefully they will manage to save,

meter after meter, kilometre after kilometre, their soil from

terrorists and extremists. You say this is about legitimacy and the

Assad himself. Why did you host Mr Assad himself. Why did you host Mr

Putin in Russia just a couple of days ago? -- why did you and Mr

Putin host him in Russia a couple of days ago? He cannot think about the

future of political settlement without having a dialogue with

legitimate leadership of Syria, with the legitimate president of Syria.

If you exclude the possibility of having a dialogue with them, it

shows you're not serious in your approach to stability. This is what

Francois Hollande said. He said, I want to believe about Mr Assad being

message was delivered there must be message was delivered there must be

a political transition in Syria and one that Assad can have no future

in. Was that the message? First of all, neither Paris nor London now

say who is supposed to be the say who is supposed to be the

president of Syria and who is not. This is what Mr Putin has been

insisting on the last month. His idea is that we can help them to

have a political settlement. You're sending in bombers on Mr Assad's

behalf. Whatever you say, the effect of what you're doing is to

strengthen, very significantly, Assad's hand, and you know that? Of

course, it is our goal to strengthen the legitimate Syrian Army, because

this is the only way. Let's not forget, and I think all the military

experts would agree with me, we can bomb for months and years, positions

of terrorists. We can have as much the zones are flying around Syria as

we want or we can continue our air force situation, but it will bring

no significant result without ground no significant result without ground

appreciation and the only power that can perform this on ground

operation, and on ground offensive against terror, is the Syrian Army,

so if we don't pursue a call and give support to that army, then

interesting in the way you keep interesting in the way you keep

talking about the Syrian Army rather than President Assad. Are you

prepared to agree with the Americans and other Western powers who say

that while Assad perhaps can be topped two at the beginning of the

diplomatic process, in the end, there can be no long-term

stabilisation, there can be no meaningful transition to a peaceful,

stable Syria with Assad still in power? Would you agree? I would

agree with another idea that was again stressed out by our President

political settlement when there is a political settlement when there is a

danger of losing the masses. We cannot be sure, without external

support, these days coming from Russia, we cannot be sure that

Damascus will not fall in a couple of months under oppression of

terrorists. We have to support them. Only when we take a victory upon

terrorists can we think about real political settlement. It is

impossible. Is it really? If you're serious about a political

addressed the Assad issue. This is addressed the Assad issue. This is

the man whose secretary-general of the UN Ban Ki-moon said that as

responsibility for crimes against humanity. We know from different

observers of different strikes that of the quarter of a million people

who have died in Syria, 75% or more have been killed by the military

forces under Assad's control. You talk about the videos you watch, I'm

the barrel bombs dropped by the the barrel bombs dropped by the

Syrian military on civilians. Given all that, can Assad really be part

of the dialogue? Well, first, we have to answer the question of

terror. Without answering the question of terror, we cannot answer

a question on the future of Syria, and the final one who is going to

answer this question will be the Syrian people, not us. We must help

them to ensure an environment for the settlement, but not to arrange

it. Let's talk about the way diplomacy might work. We've got your

Foreign Secretary Mr Sergey Lavrov. I believe tucks and Saudis are

involved. In Vienna today. Give me the picture of a sheep of the

diplomatic process that you believe could begin the process of

stabilisation in Syria? I think the only way is to establish a real

information and co-ordination of all information and

our activities. This is the premier our activities. This is the premier

goal of the efforts that are being spanned by the Russian Federation,

the Russian Prime Minister. We have been ensuring we exchange

information with Americans and participants. On the military and

intelligence level, is that happening? It is happening in a

technical and military technical way. Of course we would prefer an

sense but we would prefer it in sense but we would prefer it in

have been asking our colleagues to have been asking our colleagues to

share these goals, these coordinates with us so we could ensure that we

are striking at real terrorist targets. Unfortunately, our partners

refused to share this information with us. Is it because you have a

lack of information and coordinate lack of information and coordinate

is that over the last two weeks there have been a number of

one can only assume, given the one can only assume, given the

situation on the ground, our Russian air strikes hitting hospitals? I've

seen reports of two, possibly the seen reports of two, possibly the

Syria. Why are you allowing that? We Syria. Why are you allowing that? We

have seen lots of reports but tiny evidence. A tiny reference to

Syria's sources, so that is why we cannot count on that information. I

suggest you do not count on this information during a war. Please be

very careful in judging upon this shaky source. We are quite

self-confident in choosing the goals self-confident in choosing the goals

and our military, they do have enough information for the

possibility. The eyewitness accounts I have read including quotes from

doctors, from Syrian hospitals, you're categorically denying

responsibility, are you? Currently, yes, I have denial of the Russian

military and if you examine very carefully this footage, viz video

footage, you will see a man standing in the cage and saying something --

standing in wreckage. It could be in Yemen or any part of the world. You

have to be careful because there is have to be careful because there is

a lot of rotten information being spread. At the BBC we are aware of

misinformation and are very careful to monitor what we see with great

care. Let me ask you about another aspect of this mission that people

worry about. There is going to be blowback. You're Ian Russia now all

a lot about the danger of backlash, like Afghanistan, which cost you

13,000 troops. There may be born in Saudi Arabia and Qatar saying you do

not what you're getting into and they are prepared to ship more

weapons to due enemies in Syria and weapons to due enemies in Syria and

this could be the same kind of quagmire for Russia. Well,

yesterday, President Putin delivered a speech in front of participants in

front of an international discussion club and he was asked similar

questions, what he thinks about the possibility of a shipment of surfers

to a missiles, possibly being shipped to terrorist rebels in

Syria. President Putin has said that he hoped that would never be the

reality, because our planes, our military jets are not the only ones

who are flying in the air of Syria and performing their duties. There

are lots of other planes from other countries including the United

States, France and others that are States, France and others that are

taking part in the air strikes so it will be a large disaster to have

this kind of shipment to terrorists and we all know that unfortunately

the majority of weapons that are being shipped to so-called

opposition at the end, it appears to be the property of terrorist units.

In this entire situation right now, there is a real risk, is there not,

of a military confrontation between the United States and Russia? It may

be inadvertent, but the risk is there. I don't think so. Or military

are much more wiser than diplomats and politicians -- our military. I

hope this coordination would be enough. The document that had been

signed will be enough to avoid dangerous military activities. One

more specific on Syria then I want to broaden the issue, but on a final

Syria point, how close are you working with the Iranians? We know

they have thousands of troops on the they have thousands of troops on the

from Iran. How close they are you from Iran. How close they are you

caught a meeting with them? Well, they are participants of an

information centre in Baghdad. You know the about -- you know about the

existence of this information centre between Iraq, Iran, Russia and

Syria. It is a centre to exchange information for the purposes of

performance and the support of Russian military jets. There is any

change of information with the Iranians eyed. One cannot think

about the sustainable settlement of the situation in Syria and about a

successful struggle with the dominating terrorist powers there

without the participation of Iran. You win about the change of attitude

in Russia, in a needle, towards Mr Putin over many months? -- are you

aware? What we hear from the talk today is language which suggests

that Nato forces regard Russia as a danger to the stability of Nato.

Yesterday, Nato's biggest exercise in more than a decade, the deputy

secretary general said we want to deter Russia from even thinking

messing with us and I hope the messing with us and I hope the

Russians draw appropriate conclusions. What is due reaction to

languish like that? -- what is your reaction to language like that? I

hope my children would never hear of a tonic coming from a tour like I

did in the 1970s. Unfortunately it did in the 1970s. Unfortunately it

happened and we are sorry about that happened and we are sorry about that

but we're not the country that decided to block all contacts

between Moscow and Nato, we are not the country that has decided to

freeze down all the dialogue between Washington and Moscow, between

London and Moscow, we're not the country that has started the

dialogue of sanctions. But with respect, you're the country that is

pushing to the very edge of what Nato can regard as acceptable. Your

military aircraft in recent days have made incursions over the space

of Turkey, a needle member state. We of Turkey, a needle member state. We

all know what has happened in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea,

the Russian presence in eastern Ukraine, these are issues which of

course Nato has to respond to, that is why the recruiting is much more

bigger, rapid reaction force. You're bigger, rapid reaction force. You're

seen as a threat today. Nato is being seen as a threat by arson. --

by us. It is reciprocal, unfortunate reciprocal feelings and it makes as

necessary to take certain measures to ensure our security in front of a

very unpredictable Nato behaviour. What do you mean by certain

measures? Well, in order to ensure our security and secure security in

Europe, you mentioned Ukraine, you mention Crimea, you haven't

mentioned the queue, the takeover in Crimea and Nato never made a

movement in order to prevent Ukraine from a military takeover. Well, we

don't have much time to get into Ukraine in specific detail but there

is a big thought to end on, this conversation I think a -- I think

has illustrated the degree of tension in Syria. Russia has shown

pub in a new way and yet good economy is weak thanks to plummeting

oil prices and sanctions on you. The economy is contracting. One expert

says that Russia is now weaker than it has been an almost 100 years,

economic life. How can you project economic life. How can you project

is power on a long-term basis? Do not hold exaggerate the economic

weakness of Russia. The economy is not in a good and proper shape. We

would like to have a better and more mighty economy that is necessary for

our future, but the international economic environment and the lower

prices for hydrocarbons is not good for our economy. It is a heck of a

risk to play these power games as you are doing when you face grave

long-term economic weakness at home. Grave economic weakness, let's say,

does not exclude the necessary safety box. Trust me, we have safety

resource that would allow asked to have a proper stand in international

affairs. We have two end there, but Dmitry Peskov, I thank you very much

for being on the programme. Thank you, it was my pleasure.