Back to Gideon RachmanLast Friday I met Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, and so had a chance to put to him some of the criticisms of the Putin government, listed in my post "Fulminating against Russia." I will give an account of his views on missile defence et al, lower down.
However, I have found that most people I have spoken to about the meeting are far more interested in the question of what the Kremlin is actually like inside, than in what its representatives have to say to the world. The answer is that it is surprisingly dingy. Admittedly, it is also huge - and I only went into the first building that faces onto Red Square. However this is where, I am told, President Putin himself works. The corridors are long, sparse and lit by low wattage light bulbs. The lifts are elderly. And the security seems relatively lax, certainly compared to Downing Street or the White House. Peskov’s office has a great view over St Basil’s cathedral. But it is hardly opulent. There is a workaday conference table and a couple of beaten-up old sofas. I do not mean this as a criticism. Given that Mr Putin’s circle are regularly accused of enriching themselves, it is quite interesting that their working surroundings are not particularly flashy.
On Mr Peskov’s desk, there are no fewer than 12 internal phones. "Some of them are not so important, and some are really important." The phones have an ancient Cold War look. Peskov claimed that "I would prefer a modern, insecure Panasonic that was easier to use. And if people want to listen, let them listen." He is clearly a bit of a phone nut. He had a new Apple iPhone on his desk, although they are not meant to be usable outside the US. A friend who was also at the meeting and scanned Peskov’s desk more carefully than I did claimed to have spotted an invitation from the Kremlin film club - they’re watching "The Graduate" on Thursday.
Peskov himself is quite a classy spin-doctor - smooth, charming, funny, switching easily between "on" and "off". He has just turned 40 and is the child of diplomats. His only problem - it seemed to me - is a tendency to blush when he feels uncomfortable. When he discussed Kosovo, he spoke fluently and seemed completely at ease with the Russian position. When we got onto the investigation of the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, his answers were shorter and he flushed (with embarrassment, I thought) when he accused the British of not co-operating with the Russian investigation. And now onto the substance.
Kosovo: Things are not going well. There is a "very strong strategic disageement". The Russian position is that any unilateral declaration of Kosovan independence would set a dangerous and destabilising precedent. Peskov said - "I cannot say that a, b and c will happen if Kosovo is recognised. But it will lead to huge instability." But he stopped short of threatening to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia in retaliation. He said that this would be the easy "mathematical" response to western recognition of Kosovo, but asked rhetorically - "But would that create prosperity or stability for them?" He denied that Russia’s position was "because we are endlessly backing Belgrade."
Missile defence: The Russians don’t believe that the American system is really aimed at Iran. They think it is intended to "disable" their own "strategic nuclear facilities." I was interested that Peskov said that they were much more concerned about the planned interceptors in the Czech Republic than in Poland. An American friend who was at the meeting - and who understands this stuff much better than I do - said that this suggested to him that the Russians concern about the implications for their own nuclear weapons is genuine, since apparently the Czech interceptors are more threatening to this. But I also got the feeling that some sort of deal may be in the air. The Americans seem to be warming slighly to Russia’s offer to use Russian radar stations in Azerbaijan.
CFE and INF treaties: If Russia does decide to withdraw from these, it will not be as "measures of sweet revenge" - provoked by anger over missile defence. The Russians claim that there are separate problems, because other parties to the treaty have not fulfilled their obligations.
Iran: Peskov had just got back from President Putin’s visit to Iran and seemed to have enjoyed himself hugely. A lot of what he had to say was "off the record". But he did say that "the Iranians are very tough guys and they won’t be pressed into a corner". Russia is wary of further sanctions.
Ukraine, Georgia and Nato: "If Ukraine and Georgia want to join Nato, we have no right to object. They are sovereign nations." Off-the-record, however, Mr Peskov was rather less encouraging.
The US and Russia: There are plenty of things that are good in the relationship, It’s wrong to say that relations are at the their lowest ebb since the cold war. But - yes - the Russians are worried that "people in circles abroad" are trying to destabilise the country.
Russian democracy: "There is not a single full democracy in the world. Don’t forget that Russian democracy is just 15 years old.There are certain sets of world democratic values that are completely shared by all democracies. But the ‘modalities’ are different in different countries." It is also true that the Russian judicial system is more corrupt than in the west, but "there is very tense fight against that. It will come to a more normal situation. It simply needs time."
Putin’s future: "One thing is obvious: he will go. He is devoted to the constitution." That said, most Russians want him to stay -"And if you are talking of democracy, it is a strange situation. Most Russians want him to stay, but he has to go." Would Putin take up the post of prime minister? "There is a lot of talk of that. But it is hypothetical. Nobody knows if it will happen or not."
I’ve given a fairly verbatim account of the view from inside the Kremlin. Needless to say, there are plenty of people who would disagree with almost everything Mr Peskov said. I’ll give an account of other views I heard on my visit to Moscow later in the week.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.
