Так они по крайней мере сказали. И добавили, что озвучивать пока не будут, а будут ждать, когда госдеп выработает свою позицию по этому вопросу. И было это сутки назад. Долго как-то вырабатывает.. Ведь если ополченская ракета - чего тут вырабатывать..
Из сегодняшнего брифинга госдеп США:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229469.htm#UKRAINE
Вроде уверены, что пуск был с территории, занятой повстанцами, кто и зачем - надо выяснять
QUESTION: -- and I appreciate it.
So the President kept using a phrase in his remarks today: “We have confidence in saying.” And as you know, that’s kind of a term of art. This confidence that the United States has that the origin point for this missile was rebel-held Ukrainian territory – is that high confidence?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m going to leave it where the President of the United States stated it, James, no surprise. And again, there is a range of information, as you noted in your question, we have available that we don’t always speak about publicly, and I believe that was what he was referring to.
QUESTION: He later called it “increasing confidence.” So he qualified it at one point.
And just to follow up on what Matt said, when we have the President saying we feel confident in saying something, and then we have the UN ambassador saying “we assess” – doesn’t that strike you as there being some kind of important semantic difference there?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think it was meant to be a difference. Those statements were very coordinated and were similar in the language that was used.
QUESTION: Because the last thing she said: “We assess Malaysian airlines Flight 17 carrying these 298 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was likely downed by a surface-to-air missile, an SA-11, operated from a separatist-held location in eastern Ukraine.” Is – the word “likely” appears in there. Is the word “likely” which occurs right before “downed by a surface-to-air missile,” is she saying that it’s the missile that was likely or she’s saying that it’s the rebel-held territory that’s the likely part of this?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have some information available about what happened. Obviously, we know – we’re confident in what and where. The questions we really have are who and why, and I think that’s what the investigation will really be exploring.
QUESTION: So we know the “where,” is what you’re telling us?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we have – you heard the UN ambassador. You heard the President also speak to that. And I think --
QUESTION: Because the President said we don’t have a definite judgment on that, but you seem to be rather definitive on it, saying we know the where.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we have a good sense, as the ambassador to the UN said. So again, we’re going to see the investigation through. As we have more information, we’ll provide that information.