Ukraine War: Full interview with Putin’s spokesman 4/07/22 Transcript

Speaker 1: (00:00)
Good evening. It is an act of aggression condemned as a barbaric attack on an independent democratic country. Cities are being bombarded, towns devastated, and countless lives have been lost. And now growing evidence of war crimes is emerging, evidence dismissed by Russia as a sham. Tonight in his first British Broadcast interview since the war began, I speak to the man who does much of the talking for Vladimir Putin, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov. He joins me live from his office in Moscow. And thank you very much for being with us. First of all, do you accept that the first weeks of this invasion have not gone according to plan for president Putin?

Dmitri Peskov: (00:51)
Well, first of all, I would rather disagree with your qualification of what is going on. You did mention the qualification of special military operation. And didn’t say a word about the reasons for the specialty military operation. You-

Speaker 1: (01:08)
Because it’s a war, isn’t it? It’s not a special military operation. It is a full scale, illegal war.

It’s a very serious operation with the quite heavy consequences. Yes, I would like to start with the reason of this operation actually. It’s very important to remind you. 2014, this is the year when the legal history of Ukraine was changed. During an illegal coup and after that, Ukraine has started to become an anti-Russian center. Everything that occurred in Ukraine was aimed against our country. And during last couple of decades, actually, we were concerned about our security. NATO, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, started to move towards our body, our boundaries. And we were really nervous about that.

Speaker 1: (02:10)
But Ukraine, let’s be honest about this. Ukraine posed no threat to Russia and NATO is a defensive organization that also poses no threat to Russia. And just my point at the beginning was, that you have retreated. The reason I said it’s not going to plan, is you’ve retreated from the capital. President Zelensky is still in power. You’ve lost thousands of troops. You’ve lost six generals, hundreds of tanks and other equipment. It’s a humiliation really, isn’t it?

No, no, it’s a wrong understanding of what is going on.

Speaker 1: (02:49)
What is wrong about what I’ve just said?

Well, nearly everything. Nearly everything.

Speaker 1: (02:54)
Well, but you’ve lost thousands of troops. Yeah, let’s go through it. You’ve lost thousands of troops. How many troops have you lost?

Yes, we have significant losses of troops and it’s a huge tragedy for us. Now about two regions Kiev and the [inaudible 00:03:13] region. So actually the troops were really withdrawn from the region as an act of a goodwill during the negotiations between two delegations, Russian and Ukrainian delegation. And it was an act of a goodwill just to well, to lift tension from those regions. And in order to show that Russia is really ready to create comfortable conditions for continuation of negotiation.

Speaker 1: (03:43)
But it’s just not true, is it? Because you continued … if it was a measure of goodwill, why then did you continue to bombard Mariupol in the way that you have to devastate that city? If you really wanted to facilitate peace talks, you would’ve had a ceasefire. But you carried on bombarding Mariupol and shelling [inaudible 00:04:07] and other places. So it’s not really true, is it?

If you let me, I’ll try to explain. Well, first of all, Mariupol is a part of [inaudible 00:04:16] people’s Republic. You know, we recognize them as an independent state. And actually the premier goal of the operation was to assist those people, of two people’s republics that were suffering for eight years from heavy shelling from Ukrainian military people. And by the way, during those eight years, no one would mention that, would mention those atrocities. No one in Europe, no one in Great Britain [crosstalk 00:04:46].

Speaker 1: (04:45)
Even if that was true, it doesn’t justify a full scale of invasion. Does it? I mean, let’s keep this in proportion. I mean, are you determined, you mentioned Mariupol is part of, it’s part of Ukraine. Are you determined to take Mariupol, whatever the human cost, whatever the cost in civilian life?

Mariupol is going to be liberated from nationalistic battalions, and we hope it’ll happen sooner than later.

Speaker 1: (05:17)
So liberation, you describe it as liberation. So the pounding of Mariupol, the pounding of civilian buildings, the pounding of a hospital, that’s liberation, is it?

Well, hospital was a fake. Hospital was a fake and we have very serious reasons to believe that it was a fake. And we insist on that as a number one. Number two, [crosstalk 00:05:45].

Speaker 1: (05:45)
You did say that one of the famous photograph or infamous photograph of a woman on a stretcher, which you said was an … you said she was an actor. She turned out, a doctor told us later to have died. She told us she died. So let’s not talk about that. I mean, how many civilians … let me ask you this. How many civilians do you think have died in Ukraine so far?

I don’t want to operate any figures that are not confirmed or double confirmed. We have to be very careful. We have to be very careful in pronouncing any figures, because we’re living during days of fakes, fakes and lies that we-

Speaker 1: (06:32)
Well let me tell you this [crosstalk 00:06:34]. So your UN ambassador has said there are no credible reports of civilian casualties. And as regards Butcher, according to your ministry of defense on April the 3rd and I quote, “Not a single local resident has suffered from any violent action while Russia was in control.” I mean, do you really expect the world to believe that

We insist on that. We insist on that. And we insist that the whole situation, the situation is Butcher is a well staged insinuation. Nothing else.

Speaker 1: (07:11)
So let me just show you-

And that those poor people, those poor people, and we’re seeing dead bodies there. And those dead bodies, there were not victim of Russian military personal.

Speaker 1: (07:22)
You see, this is astonishing for you to talk like this. Let me just show you this satellite image from Butcher on the outskirts of Kiev. And this is an image taken on the 28th of February. We have geolocated it to [inaudible 00:07:40] street in Butcher, before Russia had control of the area. It’s a normal looking street. Let’s compare it to an image of the exact same location on the 19th of March, just a couple of days after Russia had taken control of the area. And now you see the shadows, bodies strew along the street, and we know they’re bodies from this video.

[crosstalk 00:08:06].

Speaker 1: (08:06)
No, but we know they’re bodies from this video released, I’m showing now, on social media on the first of April. Which we’ve geolocated as well. We have blurred the bodies for viewers. And you can see this body’s in the same place as the one scene in the satellite image, the body hasn’t moved. The car drives along further. You can see stops at two more bodies, again, matching the position of the ones in that satellite image.

Speaker 1: (08:30)
And so it continues with everybody on the street. And you maintain that all this was staged. You’re talking about a fake. This shows that dead body appeared while you control the area. Russian troops killed those people, didn’t they?

If you have another 20 or to 30 minutes, I will explain step by step. Why it all fakes? If you have this additional time, let’s go on. I will tell you.

Speaker 1: (08:58)
Well, you are saying it’s fake, so there’s not much point going on, but we’ve verified it. We’ve geolocated-

Speaker 1: (09:03)
So there’s not much point going on. But we’ve verified it. We’ve geolocated it. We’ve got the dates from the satellite imagery company.

We know pretty well the company that has supplied international community with these satellite pictures. This is [inaudible 00:09:15] company that is in a very tight cooperation with the Pentagon. It’s interesting. It’s interesting to know. And what you would probably be interesting to know that they don’t have actually exact dates on their footage, on their satellite images. So, it’s impossible to allocate an exact date of those satellite pictures.

Speaker 1: (09:43)
Okay. Let’s have a look at this.

We still insist that those pictures were made after Russian troops were withdrawn from that area.

Speaker 1: (09:53)
Okay. Well, what about this one then? Because our team has also verified this next video to early March in the same area of Bucha. And here we see a woman with a bike, named today as Arena Philkeena, walking along [inaudible 00:10:10] Street when Russian troops were in control. Around the corner is an armored vehicle identified by our team as a Russian military vehicle. So, the Russians are there. You can see the vehicle fire a shot, which creates a plume of smoke exactly where Areena was standing with her bike. Now, after the… After… [crosstalk 00:10:33] Let me finish. So, if I could just finish [inaudible 00:10:35], sorry. After the Russians have withdrawn, this video geolocated to the exact same spot showed Areena lying dead on the ground.

Speaker 1: (10:44)
So, there can be no real doubt, surely, that this shows Russian troops killing a civilian. It’s right there on film.

I’ll appreciate if you could be more specific. How could you exactly identify the Russian tank or whatever? Why do you think it was Russian?

Speaker 1: (11:05)
Okay. Well, I think we got a still that shows the Russian tower. You can see if you look at that. You can see the V marking clearly on the side.

But, those are not the tanks that were shooting.

Speaker 1: (11:16)
That suggests…

Different positions.

Speaker 1: (11:19)
They are the exact same armored vehicles that were on that street. Look, we’ve verified it.

What you are showing right now are not the exact tank that were shooting.

Speaker 1: (11:35)
Let’s…

You have to be very careful. You have to be very careful in what you are showing. Just not [inaudible 00:11:40].

Speaker 1: (11:40)
It is exactly the same armed vehicle. So, you deny that that happened? You’re denying it’s happened and you are saying it’s being faked, basically. It’s some sort of conspiracy. Is that right?

We deny that Russian military can have something in common with these atrocities and with dead bodies that were shown on the streets of Bucha.

Speaker 1: (12:02)
So, let’s just be clear here. What you are saying to the world, what you are saying to Ukrainians, what you are saying to, let’s face it, the relatives of those victims that we’ve just seen there. And what you are saying to Russians, your own people, is that this is fabricated. It is fake. And that it is some sort of huge conspiracy, a propaganda stunt. Do you realize how grotesque that sounds?

Well, it’s not a conspiracy, actually. It’s a bold fake. It’s a bold fake. And we’ve been speaking about that for a couple of days, but no one would listen to us. We’ve been presenting very detailed explanations on various internet resources. If you are interested in that, we’ll provide you with those internet resources.

Speaker 1: (12:53)
But, to say it’s a fake, you are suggesting it’s a conspiracy between satellite imagery companies, between Ukrainians, between all the Western media. You are suggesting it is a conspiracy. It’s exactly what you’re saying.

Well, of course it can be a play of fakes. It can be a play of lies.

Speaker 1: (13:15)
Okay.

You can attach any date to a picture that was made through satellite.

Speaker 1: (13:23)
Okay. And then what about…

We have to doubt sometimes. You cannot be without any investigation.

Speaker 1: (13:29)
But, you doubt all the time.

You cannot be so sure.

Speaker 1: (13:32)
Okay.

By blaming everything on Russia.

Speaker 1: (13:35)
Well, let me put this to you then. Human Rights Watch, the organization. They’ve already documented hundreds of apparent war crimes. And these include, I’ve got it here, repeated rape of a woman in front of her child after her husband was killed. Other cases of rape. Two cases of summary execution, one of six men, the other of one man. Other cases of torture, unlawful violence, threats against civilians. I’ve got the dates. I’ve got the witness statements. We can go through it if you want, but these are documented killings with witness evidence and corroborated by the way, today, by Amnesty International. And we’ve yet to discover what’s happening in Mariupol. Don’t you see, it’s just preposterous to issue a blanket denial of all these things?

It should all be very thoroughly investigated. I agree with you. But, at the same time, we have even the bigger amount of eyewitnesses and people who took part in these various situations and in Mariupol, in Bucha and other towns of Ukraine. They were telling us the terrible stories of those nationalistic battalion military people, torturing people, not letting them leave the town, not letting them go out of the town, flee the town. So, we also have these eyewitnesses.

Speaker 1: (15:24)
So, I mean…

But, you don’t want to listen to them, to those.

Speaker 1: (15:29)
We do. We do. We’ve just been carrying a story this afternoon about claims of Ukrainian walk. I spoke to the chief prosecutor of Ukraine on this program the other day. And she said that all war crimes would be investigated and all the evidence would be passed on to the International Criminal Court. The difference is one…

We are interested…

Speaker 1: (15:50)
The difference…

In investigating everything.

Speaker 1: (15:55)
But, the difference is…

We also collect evidence and proofs for crimes that were committed by nationalistic battalions.

Speaker 1: (16:05)
But, the difference is one of scale, but it is also that they are agreeing to investigate. You are saying it is not true, it is a fake before you’ve even investigated.

Well, we have to say that it’s not true because we are hearing that everything is blamed on Russia. And we completely disagree with that. And by the way, I would have a humble suggest to you. Suggestion. If you make a story about crimes in Ukraine, and if you speak to Ukrainian prosecutor general, why don’t you speak to Russian prosecutor general to make an objective picture, to present two sides?

Speaker 1: (16:50)
We’d love to do that.

Two points.

Speaker 1: (16:52)
We will do that. Let’s just suppose then that what you are saying is right and that your troops have not committed these crimes. Presumably then, you will happily cooperate with the International Criminal Court. If you are not guilty of any of these things, presumably you will cooperate with the International Criminal Court. Even if you don’t recognize that court.

We do not support and we do not recognize International Criminal Court. And we’re not the only country in the world who are doing that. So, this is number one. And we are interested in really independent and in the objective investigation of all the crimes. But, we want to understand what could be the format of such an investigation because we have a bitter experience of international investigations, like with the grounded Korean aircraft international investigation. And we were not let into that investigation, so we cannot consider it to be objective.

Speaker 1: (17:59)
So, there other special tribunals. [crosstalk 00:18:02]. There are other special.

Speaker 1: (18:03)
There other special tribunals.

We don’t want to [crosstalk 00:18:02]

Speaker 1: (18:03)
There are other special tribunals that you could cooperate with. My only point is that if you haven’t done this, then why don’t you just cooperate with the tribunals or the international criminal court?

Well, we are not speaking any tribunals. We don’t know about the existence of tribunals. And I repeat, we do not recognize international court.

Speaker 1: (18:26)
Let me put this to you. You deny responsibility then quite clearly. What you can’t deny is that civilians, many civilians, including women and children have died as a result of this onslaught and they would be alive today had you not invaded Ukraine. I think it’s 142 children so far. You yourself have children. You have a young daughter. When you see the images, how does it make you feel? How do you sleep at night?

It’s not about my sleep at night actually. And this is about Ukrainian military and Ukrainian nationalistic military personnel trying to use civil people as a shield, as a civil shield. So they’re covering themselves with civil people and not letting them flee the town or flee the city. And from the very beginning, Russian military were never shelling civil objects. They were just aiming and using high precision missiles to attack military infrastructure of Ukraine because demilitarization of Ukraine was one of the premise of-

Speaker 1: (19:55)
There must have been a lot of … Well, sir, forgive me for interrupting, but there must have been a lot of Ukrainian military and a lot of civilian buildings then, because our reporters have been out and about in many of these towns and cities.

Exactly. This is the point.

Speaker 1: (20:08)
No, I mean, it is defies belief that many of the targets that we’ve seen destroyed are military targets. But I was talking to you really not as a Kremlin spokesman. I was talking to, as a father, as a human being, when you see these images, how do you sleep at night? That was really my question.

There’s a tragedy. There’s a tragedy and our military are doing their best to bring an end to that operation. We do hope that in coming days, in foreseeable future, this operation will reach its goals or will finish it by the negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian delegation.

Speaker 1: (20:58)
I mean, do you think this can possibly end in a negotiation or talks after what has happened?

It can, it can. It will strongly depend on consistency of Ukrainian position and to what extent they will be ready to meet our conditions.

Speaker 1: (21:20)
Boris Johnson has said that Russia’s and I quote, this is a quote, “Russia’s despicable attacks on innocent civilians in Irpin and Bucha are yet more evidence that Putin and his army are committing war crimes in Ukraine. We will not rest until justice is served.” What’s your message to Boris Johnson?

Well, he’s very loud in his rhetorics about pressure from the very beginning of the operation. So in our understanding, he’s rather not constructive in his attitude. We have never heard any similar rhetorics coming from Boris Johnson during the last eight years when people in Donbas were killed by Ukrainian nationalists. When they were heavily bombarded and shelled by heavy artillery, we have never heard a word coming from Mr. Johnson.

Speaker 1: (22:15)
But it is scarcely comparable. In light of what Mr. Johnson has said, does Mr. Putin Putin worry about ending up in a war crimes court?

No, he is not.

Speaker 1: (22:30)
Had you talked to him about that? Does he realize that it’s a possibility?

Well, we don’t see any possibility for that.

Speaker 1: (22:40)
But you have spoken about it, have you?

We’ve read lots of reports coming from various countries, politilogists and then the so-called specialists in Russia discussing such a possibility, but we don’t consider this possibility to be realistic.

Speaker 1: (23:00)
You see, one of the problems with these blanket denials is that isn’t the problem for you and for Mr. Putin, that very few people outside Russia believe a single word that you say about all this.

Why do you think it’s a few people? It’s a great amount of people. It’s a great amount of people who understand concerns of Russia and who have been understanding those concerns during the last couple of decades. The world, you have to understand that the world is bigger than Europe and the United States and great Britain. It’s much bigger.

Speaker 1: (23:40)
Is it? But I mean, in the last hour, you’ve just been kicked off the UN Human Rights Council so that is what much of the world thinks about Russia and about the alleged war crimes coming out now.

We’re sorry about that and we’ll continue to defend our interests using every possible legal means. We’ll continue to defend our interests and to explain ourselves.

Speaker 1: (24:09)
The problem with the lies that many international leaders are accusing you of is it’s not new, is it? I mean, you can look just recently at the lies from Russia, just the recent ones. The Ukrainians, you say, shot down Malaysia Airlines MH17 in 2014. The Syrian opposition gassed their own people. The White Helmets in Syria are terrorists who belong to Al-Qaeda. Navalny, Putin’s opponent, collapsed because of his medication, not because he was poisoned. The GRU agents who were in Salisbury came to see a cathedral. In 2014 again, there are no Russian troops in Crimea or Donbas. Then, just a few weeks ago, “We are not going to invade Ukraine.” I mean, none of those are true, are they? None of those are true. Which one of those is true?

Are you suggesting that we discuss all those step by step?

Speaker 1: (25:03)
Which one of those is true?

Let’s start from the very beginning. What was number one?

Speaker 1: (25:09)
You say the the Ukrainians shot down Malaysian Airlines MH17 in 2014. I mean, you’re not going to tell me that that’s true?

But there are lots of evidence. There are lots of technical calculations and they were all submitted to the court in the Hague. There is a huge deficit of proofs and technical data in the court and there are different points of views.

Speaker 1: (25:40)
The GRU agents in Salisbury came to see the cathedral. I mean, look, the problem here is a problem of trust. That people don’t trust what you say.

But you have pronounced all of them-

Speaker 1: (25:50)
When you have a major … Mr. Peskov, let me finish.

You have pronounced all of them and you’re not letting me to respond.

Speaker 1: (25:53)
That you are a major country, hugely important culturally, hugely important historically, and people now don’t believe a word the leadership says. That is a problem, isn’t it?

Which people?

Speaker 1: (26:13)
Many of the international leaders.

You mean, people who agreed with you?

Speaker 1: (26:15)
Most of the west. Many of the international leaders.

Many of them, yes. They say that they don’t believe. But many of the leaders believe, and they tend to explore, they tend to listen to our point of view and we find their position much more constructive and much more attractive for us.

Speaker 1: (26:36)
But it’s a problem in any dialogue, any future negotiations that people don’t trust you, particularly over NATO. I mean, Vladimir Putin embarked on this military operation basically saying it was to counter, partly to counter the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe. Well, NATO has more troops now in Eastern Europe. Germany is increasing its defense spending. I mean, NATO is-

Speaker 1: (27:03)
… and Eastern Europe. Germany is increasing its defense spending. I mean, NATO is stronger now than it was. It’s stronger, not weaker.

Yeah, and that’s, we have to rebalance the situation, and we have to take additional measures to ensure our own security, because we still are deeply convinced that NATO is a machine for confrontation. It’s not a peaceful alliance. It was tailored for confrontation, and the main purposes of its existence, to confront, and to confront our country.

Speaker 1: (27:36)
But see-

This is very unfortunate situation, but we have to take it into account.

Speaker 1: (27:39)
But see, NATO is a defensive organization, and Finland-

Yes, exactly.

Speaker 1: (27:44)
… Finland and Sweden, Finland has an 800-mile border with your country. They now want to join NATO as a result of all this. What would Russia do if Finland and Sweden joined NATO?

We’ll have to rebalance the situation, I repeat again, and then we’ll have to make our Western flank more sophisticated in terms of ensuring our security.

Speaker 1: (28:19)
But when you say “rebalance,” I mean, President Putin has warned of serious military and political consequences. I just wonder what that means.

Well, we’ll have to… It’s everything about mutual deterring, mutual deterring, and should one side, and we consider NATO to be one side, should one side be more powerful than the other? Especially in terms of nuclear arms. Then it will consider a threat for the whole architecture of security, and it will take us to take additional measures, additional measures to strengthen our prudential.

Speaker 1: (29:03)
But just very quickly on that finally, would you consider that an existential threat? Because that is, you have said it would take an existential threat to use nuclear weapons, which you’ve just mentioned.

What exactly? Another enlargement of NATO?

Speaker 1: (29:24)
You would consider that an existential threat?

No, I don’t think so.

Speaker 1: (29:28)
Right. Would you consider pressure on your economy, or sanctions that you deemed were to wreck your economy, even topple the regime, would you consider that an existential threat?

Well, no. No, we’ve been living under sanctions for a couple of decades, and we actually have gotten accustomed to that situation. Well, we have started to prepare ourselves for these sanctions a year ago, a year ago, so now of course, we are in a very tight situation in terms of economy, but our economy is still on its feet, and we are quite, quite well. We’re safe, maybe not safe and sound, but we’re safe in terms of economy, in terms of macro stability.

Speaker 1: (30:24)
Just finally-

And even, we are trying to take advantage out of this situation. We’re giving a boost to development of our productive sector, of our national technologies, and so on and so forth.

Speaker 1: (30:40)
And just finally, you’ve accused Ukraine of being a fascist regime, but isn’t it Russia that is an increasingly looking like a fascist state, all the hallmarks of fascism, the shutting down of all opposition, the strict censorship of the media, the sinister Z sign that is appearing, and just the climate of fear? Doesn’t that all have a feeling of fascism about it?

No, well, I consider it quite unacceptable to speak in that way about my country. No. The answer is definitely no. The answer is no, and asking this question, I would suggest that you just recall last eight years, with Nazis demonstrations on the streets of Kiev, on the streets of Lviv, with people who were part of Nazis regiments during the Second World War, carrying Nazi signs and Nazi flags, and performing Nazi, Nazi, Nazi… I don’t know the English word for that.

Speaker 1: (31:57)
Nazi, yeah, but-

Yeah, but those Nazi demonstrations, they… Well, it was a reality. It was a reality on the streets of Ukrainian cities.

Speaker 1: (32:07)
But the last election, the Nazi… The far right parties barely won 2% of the vote. I mean, you’ve got to keep this in… Look, my final question is this: What is to come? Because only Vladimir Putin knows that. Presumably more bombardments, presumably more death. Who knows? Maybe more war crimes. My final question is this: You know, you’ve ripped away the future of two countries, immediate future for two countries, Russia, your own country, and Ukraine, and my final question is, is it all worth it? Honestly, is it all worth it?

The whole story is about future. It’s about guaranteeing our future. Just imagine a situation when a member of NATO, Ukraine, thinking about returning of Crimea, attacks Russia and attacks Russian Crimea, and using an Article 5 of NATO charter, NATO countries possessing nukes will have to defend Ukraine.

Speaker 1: (33:16)
Yeah.

It should be a Third World War. And what is being done-

Speaker 1: (33:22)
But it wasn’t going to happen.

… is to save us from any potential threat of such a war.

Speaker 1: (33:26)
It was never going to happen, was it? Like that. But listen, Mr. Peskov, appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Ukraine War: Full interview with Putin’s spokesman 4/07/22 Transcript

Other Related Transcripts

Stay updated.