MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin on Thursday strongly defended Russia’s implacable opposition to military intervention in Syria and he sharply chastised the United States for its role in toppling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, describing that outcome as a mistake that created chaos and ultimately led to the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi.
Mr. Putin, responding to a question at his annual end-of-year news conference, rejected an assertion that Russia was making a mistake, potentially isolating itself and at risk of losing influence in the Middle East, by opposing intervention in Syria, where the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad is now nearly two years old. Mr. Putin pointed to Libya as his evidence that intervention by the NATO alliance of Western nations had caused more harm than good.
“No matter how they explained their position, the state is falling apart,” he said. “Interethnic, inter-clan and intertribal conflicts continue. Moreover, it went as far as the murder of the United States ambassador.” He added, “I was asked here about mistakes: Isn’t it a mistake? And you want us to constantly repeat these mistakes in other countries?”
Mr. Putin insisted that Russia was not acting in defense of President Assad of Syria, but rather to preserve stability. “We are not concerned with the fate of Assad’s regime,” he said. “Of course, changes are being demanded but it’s something else that concerns – what will happen next?”
His remarks about Syria came as United Nations human rights investigators said in a new report that the Syria crisis had evolved from a battle to oust Mr. Assad into more of a sectarian conflict, pitting entire communities against each other and pulling in fighters from the Middle East and North Africa.
Mr. Putin expressed worry that the Assad government and the Syrian opposition could merely switch places, with the rebels in power but with the fighting unabated.
Later, elaborating on Russia’s position, he said: “We stand for finding a variation of a solution to the problem which would save the region and this country first from collapse and never-ending civil war.”
He continued, “Our position is not for the retention of Assad and his regime in power at any cost but that the people in the beginning would come to an agreement on how they would live in the future, how their safety and participation in ruling the state would be provided for, and then start changing the current state of affairs in accordance with these agreements, and not vice versa.”
Russia, a longtime ally of Syria, has used its veto authority as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, both to block more aggressive intervention sought by the United States and many other countries and to defend the sovereignty of the Assad government. But in recent days, the Kremlin has sounded increasingly pessimistic about Mr. Assad’s retention of power, and Russian officials have acknowledged developing contingency plans to evacuate Russia citizens from Syria. Thousands of Syrian men who attended universities in Russia and returned to live in Syria have Russian wives.
While the West has focused closely on any signs that Russia might alter its position on Syria, in the hopes that it might hasten the dislodging of Mr. Assad, it is far from certain that the Kremlin could persuade the Syrian leader to relinquish power.
Russia has been a major Syria arms supplier and trade partner with the Assad government and maintains a small naval refueling installation in the Syrian port of Tartus. But Mr. Putin on Thursday sought to portray the relationship as transactional. “Some special economic relations?” Mr. Putin asked rhetorically. “No. And Assad did not come to Moscow a lot during the period of his presidency. More often he was in Paris and other European capitals than here.”
In Geneva, an interim report on Syria by a panel of the United Nations Human Rights Council said that as the conflict approached the end of its second year, it “has become overtly sectarian in nature.”
The panel, led by Paulo Pinheiro, a veteran human rights investigator from Brazil, said attacks and reprisals had led communities to arm themselves and to be armed by different parties to the conflict. “Entire communities are at risk of being forced out of the country or killed inside the country,” the panel wrote in the report, which covered developments over the past two months.
“Feeling threatened and under attack, ethnic and religious minority groups have increasingly aligned themselves with parties to the conflict, deepening sectarian divides,” the panel said.
The sharpest split is between the ruling minority Alawite sect, a Shiite Muslim offshoot from which President Assad’s most senior political and military associates are drawn, and the country’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly aligned with the opposition, the panel noted. But it said the conflict had drawn in other minorities, including Armenians, Christians, Druze, Palestinians, Kurds and Turkmens.
Most foreign fighters joining the conflict are Sunni Muslims from neighboring Middle Eastern and North African countries, many of them linked to extremist groups, the panel said, and often operating independently of the opposition Free Syrian Army but coordinating attacks with its forces.
Lebanon’s Shiite group Hezbollah confirmed that its members were fighting for the Assad government, the panel said, and it was investigating reports that Iraqi Shiites had also entered Syria. Iran has also confirmed that members of its Revolutionary Guards Corps are providing the Assad regime with “intellectual and advisory support.”
Making their fourth submission to the Human Rights Council, the panel of four investigators said government forces and supporting militias had attacked Sunni civilians and opposition forces had attacked Alawite and other pro-government communities. It said Kurdish groups had clashed with government and antigovernment forces, Turkmen militias were fighting with antigovernment forces, and Palestinians, increasingly split in their view of the Assad government, were being armed by both pro- and antigovernment forces.
“As the conflict drags on, the parties have become ever more violent and unpredictable, which has led to their conduct increasingly being in breach of international law,” the panel concluded.
