The document urged the Obama administration to adopt a more aggressive stance against the Syrian government of President Assad, including the use of military force.
The 51 signatories to the document, which was sent through the department’s internal “dissent channel,” were largely mid-level diplomats based in Washington and overseas.
The State Department has immediately leaked the document to The New York Times providing the Russian media with a reason to suggest that the whole move is a “performance with which the US diplomacy pursues its own murky purposes.”
“However it is worth noting that the majority of those “dissent” are always those who demand toughening of the US policy in this or that region, up to an open military invasion,” it adds.
The website further suggests that the move resembles a staged performance, which pursues certain aims.
The first, it says, is that the State Department earns a reputation of an institution where “all US citizen employees, foreign and domestic, are able to express dissenting or alternative views on substantive issues of policy without fear of reprisal and in a manner which ensures serious, high-level review and response.”
The State Department’s dissent channel was established during the Vietnam War.
Secondly, it suggests that the Secretary of State in this conflict “goes into the background” as if saying “it is not me, it is my employees”.
The US media has already criticized John Kerry for his reaction to the document.
The Russian website further suggested that the US diplomats just admitted their inability to settle the Syrian conflict by the diplomatic means and now want to shift all the responsibility to Pentagon, which could be further blamed for the chaos in the region, failures in Syria and “confrontation with Russia.”
By defining the government of President Assad as the main focus of the US military operations, the State Department employees directly deny the earlier declared aims of “fighting against terrorism and Islamist extremism, the website notes.
And wonders that it is the US diplomacy which is now insisting on a war with unpredictable consequences.