Kirbyn lausuman tulkinta sodan julistukseksi on tosiaan lähinnä mielikuvitusmaailmasta. Kirby puhui konfliktin jatkumisesta ja mahdollisesta eskaloitumisesta ja sen mahdollisista seurauksista Venäjälle, ei "uhannut" millään iskuilla saati esittänyt sodanjulistusta. Sodanjulistuksena sitä tuskin kukaan aidosti Venäjällä on ottanut. Suoraan siihen on tiettävästi vastannut vain ulkoministeriön tiedottaja Maria Zakharova facebookissa (!) (https://www.facebook.com/maria.zakharov ... 1359889642), joka kommentoi asiaa jo samana päivänä niin että hänen mukaansa lausuman voisi tulkita pikemminkin kehotukseksi iskuihin (kоманда "фас") kuin diplomaattiseksi kommentiksi. Zakharova kutsui kommenttejaan alustaviksi ennen virallista kannanottoa. Sen enempää Zakharovan lausumassa kuin missään virallisessa kannanotossakaan mistään sodanjulistuksesta ei liene puhuttu joten Venäjä ei näytä sitä sellaisena ottaneen. Media (tai tietty osa) toki asiaa on "tulkinnut" omalla tavallaan. Kirby myös vastasi Zakharovan kommentteihin seuraavana päivänä, kuvaten uhkaustulkintaa sanoilla "completely bogus" (tätä ei ilmeisesti esimerkiksi RT enää vaivautunut kertomaan, vaikka aiempaa lausumaa useaan otteeseen pyörittikin).Tapio Onnela kirjoitti:Kerro lähde väitteellesi, jonka mukaan Yhdysvallat on uhannut Venäjää terroiskuilla. Väite kuullostaa mielikuvitusmedian uutiselta.Lemmi kirjoitti:USA:n ulkoministeriön tiedottaja John Kirby tosiaan uhkasi Venäjää terroristi-iskuilla Venäjän maaperällä ja venäläisillä ruumissäkeillä. Se on lähes sodan julistus ja Venäjä kai ottikin sen sellaisena. Eivät valtiot usein vihjaa uhkaavasti terroristi-iskuilla toista valtiota.
Kirby sanoi siis reilu viikko sitten lehdistötilaisuudessa näin (RT:n ja vastaavien tahojen julkaisuissa tämä useimmiten pätkittynä, joten siksi kontekstia mukaan):
Ja Kirbyn kommentit seuraavana päivänä koskien Zakharovan viestiä:QUESTION: John, I’d just like to take another crack at Arshad’s question. If you’re going to get any kind of agreement, you have to have some leverage, and that can be positive and negative reinforcements. So you’ve said what’s in it – the agreement for the Russians is the possibility of military collaboration, this Joint Implementation Center. That’s something they want. But what I don’t think we have heard here is, so what are the consequences for Russia if this agreement falls through beyond some interagency discussions about options that have not yet been chosen? What are the consequences for Russia other than Secretary Kerry won’t talk to them on this particular issue going forward?
MR KIRBY: The consequences are that the civil war will continue in Syria, that extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft. The stability that they claim they seek in Syria will be ever more elusive, and it’s hard to imagine how a continued war – not just a civil war now, but increasingly more violent extremist activity in Syria – can be in the interest of a nation that says, that claims, and has claimed publicly time and time again that what they want to see is a whole, unified, pluralistic Syria and a stable Syria, a secure Syria, a Syria where they want to continue to have a defense relationship and a presence. So that’s what’s in it for them.
QUESTION: Well, when you say – just a quick follow-up – when you say that extremists will exploit the vacuum and that could include attacks on Russia’s cities and Russia could send its troops back in body bags, that also could suggest that perhaps the rebels could start sending home their troops in body bags.
MR KIRBY: It’s going to mean, again, more violence, more war, and you can expect casualties on both sides of this. But the question was what’s in it for Russia to meet its obligations under I don’t know how many different agreements, but specifically the one from September 9th in terms of seven days of reduced violence, humanitarian access. So the question posed to me was what’s in it for Russia, and that’s what’s in it for Russia --
QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you said yesterday, or the threat, because it did not go un-noticed in Moscow. In fact, your counterpart in the Russian foreign ministry, Zakharova, said who are you expecting to attack the cities, or something akin to that, she posted on her Facebook. Is it the moderates that you talk about? Obviously, I don’t know what kind of – what is the message behind what she’s saying. But she’s saying – she’s talking about the body bags and so on. How serious was that threat? How does that threat ought – should be interpreted?
MR KIRBY: I wasn’t issuing any threat yesterday to --
QUESTION: I mean, you were saying that those cities could be vulnerable, Russians will go back in body bags and so on. That was not a threat?
MR KIRBY: No. Those were facts. And they’re not new facts; they’re not things that we haven’t said before. The question was: What would be the consequences to Russia for not being serious about meeting their commitments? And I said what I have said, the Secretary has said, many times before – that the consequences are more war, more bloodshed. And it’s Russian troops that are in that war, not U.S. troops. So it was just a fact. There was no threat, there was no – I’ve seen claims that I was trying to incite terrorism, and that’s just completely bogus. That’s not at all the point that I was trying to make.