CNN Anchor Jim Sciutto Says the U.S. Is at War. We Just Don't Know It.
We made a good run of it, didn’t we? For the past three-quarters of a century, the United States dominated the world stage. We were the keepers of the peace, the pioneers of technological innovation, the top dogs of military might. Like all good things, American exceptionalism must come to end. We just didn’t realize how swiftly that reckoning would come.
In his new book, The Shadow War: Inside Russia’s and China’s Secret Operations to Defeat America, Jim Sciutto, chief national security correspondent for CNN, explores the many, varied ways our adversaries to the East have chipped away at the U.S.’s standing as king of the global hill. By design, their tactics have remained far enough under the radar so as to avoid provoking military conflict. The sooner we recognize the threat to the rules-based international order we helped build in the wake of World War II, the better chance we have of preserving our supreme standing.
Amazon
The Shadow War: Inside Russia's and China's Secret Operations to Defeat America
Jim Sciutto amazon.com
$27.99 $18.29 (35% off)
Buy
This is not a work of dispassionate analysis. Sciutto is unabashedly pro-America, and he casts Russia and China as our villains. If the U.S. is to blame, he argues, it’s for misapprehending and underestimating the competition. The sources he most relies on are former U.S. officials—Jim Clapper, Michael Hayden, Ashton Carter. Sciutto says he reached out to Chinese and Russian officials, but they rebuffed his requests.
This past Monday, fresh off the set of CNN Newsroom, which he co-anchors each weekday morning, Sciutto stopped by the offices of Esquire to talk about his book. During the conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed which adversary in the shadow war we should be most concerned about, whether the U.S. has undermined its own international credibility, and the ways in which Donald Trump has sped up our decline.
Esquire: What is the shadow war?
Jim Sciutto: It’s an undeclared war that most Americans don't know about. China and Russia, two very different countries, are using a very similar strategy: The idea is to attack and undermine the United States on multiple fronts at the same time, just below the threshold of a shooting war in a way that doesn't lead the U.S. to fight back. They know if they were to attack us head on, aircraft carrier to aircraft carrier or nuclear bomb to nuclear bomb, they would lose. At least, no one would win. By attacking around the margins, they’ve gained a lot over time, particularly because we were not paying attention. Even now that we know about it, we still haven’t figured out how to respond.
Give me some examples.
Russia’s interference in our 2016 presidential election, for instance. They targeted one of our most sacred institutions—shouldn’t that lead to a sea change in our relations with them? Lo and behold, that’s a very political issue in the U.S. Our president won't even acknowledge that it happened, because he takes it personally. In effect, Russia gets away with it. Some sanctions here and there, but not enough to change their behavior. So they did it again in the midterm election, in 2018, and are probably going to do it in 2020.
China, for its part, has been stealing U.S. trade secrets for decades, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses. Companies can't stand it, but at the end of the day the U.S. has to trade with China. Of course, there's a trade war going on now. Still, they kind of get away with it.
There are the more aggressive actions, like old-school territorial games in defiance of the global order established post-World War II. People forget that Russia invaded the Ukraine. They're like, "Ukraine's a billion miles away." Well, it's in Europe, and it's a U.S. ally. Russia now controls Crimea and a big portion of Eastern Ukraine. In the South China Sea, China decided to just up and create territory out of thin air. They thought the U.S. would not going to go to war over it, and they were right.
Then you have their use of new technologies. Both Russia and China have literal space weapons floating around above our heads, designed to take out satellites that control stuff that you and I depend on. They could take it out in seconds.
image
A satellite image of Subi Reef, an artificial island being developed by China in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
Getty Images
The U.S. media has reported extensively on all of the examples you mentioned. Why do you say that most Americans are not aware of what’s going on?
For one, you have to connect the dots. Americans are aware of the dots but not how the dots connect. Most people grant that Russia interfered with the election. But do they connect that to territorial gain in Europe? Do they even know that there are satellite weapons? No.
Who should we be more worried about, Russia or China?
In the short term, arguably Russia. It’s like a cornered rat; it could be very dangerous if it lashed out. If that happens, the situation could escalate to a degree that no one wants.
But if you talk to folks in U.S. military, or who work on national security, almost without exception, they'll say China is the bigger long-term threat. They're bigger, stronger, and have more tools at their disposal. They're our real challenger.
Do you consider Russia and China as allies in the Shadow War, in the traditional sense?
No, because they're not working together on this, and they have their own interests. China out and out wants to surpass the U.S. in every way. Their ambition is to be king of the world, to reclaim their rightful place as the most dominant country—economically, militarily, politically, diplomatically.
Russia is more of a spoiler. They don't think they're going to overtake the U.S. But they act from a place of feeling victimized, brought down by the fall of the Soviet Union. They’re playing a zero-sum game: “If I poke the U.S. in the eye, it’s a gain for us.”
Their goals may differ, but China and Russia have struck on the same asymmetric tactic as a way to beat their stronger competitor.
image
Russians rally of "We are together" at the Red Square after Russias president Vladimir Putin signed the treaty of annexation of Crimea, on March 18, 2014 in Moscow, Russia.
Getty Images
This sounds a lot like Cold War 2.0.
It's similar in the sense that it is global. During the Cold War, everything was seen through that Cold War lens. This is similar, except that the fronts are arguably closer to home: Our elections, our technology. The other way it's similar is that you have the potential for escalation in any one of these arenas. At some point, do you push that threshold too far and end up in a place where you don't want to be?
I'll give you two examples. Since China succeeded in the South China Sea, there’s been a lot of talk about whether they’ll invade Taiwan. If they do, will the U.S. go to war? We have a military alliance with Taiwan, but will we really honor it? Will there be political support here for sending Americans there to die in a bloody conflict? And what if Japan is invaded next?
One chapter of my book is about Russia’s cyberattack on Estonia, our NATO ally, in 2007. What if Moscow were to send troops there? Will Americans go fight for Estonia?
In the book, you take it as a given that the U.S. remains the best country to lead global affairs. Is there a chance that our time at the steering wheel is over?
Well, I would question whether I'm making the case for America being number one. What I do believe is that Russia and China are challenging an American-designed system, or at least a rules-based international order that we’ve invested in and fought to preserve for decades. My argument is for that kind of system, because it keeps the peace and, arguably, the prosperity.
Now, when I make that case, I'm an American speaking from New York City, and I carry some bias. People in China and Russia might say, "But those are rules that you imposed. Why should you be allowed to police my backyard?"
This is a clash of systems—authoritarianism in Russia and China, and democracy, however imperfect, in the U.S. The question is, who do you want to be in control of making those rules?
image
Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping leave a business leaders event at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on November 9, 2017.
Getty Images
Aren’t we dialing back on that notion of Pax Americana? It’s hard to make our case when we’ve, for example, left the Paris Climate Accord and abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Clearly, we are pulling back. Some of that is driven by domestic politics and an exhaustion over endless wars. We're still in Iraq; we're still in Afghanistan. Many of the former officials I talked to for the book implied that we’ve been fighting the wrong war.
It’s more than that, right? We invaded Iraq based on faulty and outright wrong intelligence. Afghanistan is now the longest war in American history. Why should we, let alone other countries, maintain faith in the ability of the U.S. to lead global affairs?
I get it. The U.S. has made enormous mistakes with its exercise of power. I just finished watching the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary. What a chronicle of repeated mistakes and unnecessary losses. The U.S. has a faulty record, no question. But don't compare it to Russia and China. I don't think it's a close call between whose system is better.
That assumes it’s either/or: Russia and China will lead, or we will. Can you foresee an outcome in which no one country dominates the world stage?
We may be. We may be.
"China is basically on par with us. They don't have the same military, nor the same influence in various international organizations. But they’re moving closer."
Maybe? Or definitely?
Well, economically, we clearly are. China is basically on par with us. They don't have the same military, nor the same influence in various international organizations. But they’re moving closer. Maybe that's a fact of life that we'll have to deal with. Then the question becomes, how much do you lose by backing off?
How has the U.S. exacerbated the Shadow War?
One universal assessment, and this is from sources who served in Republican and Democratic administrations, is that we misunderstood the other side. George W. Bush famously said that he looked into Putin's eye and saw a guy he could deal with. We thought Russia and China wanted the same thing we wanted—an international rules-based system. Not only were we wrong; we were slow to realize it.
What about offensive moves? We, along with Israel, built a computer virus designed to cripple Iran’s nuclear facilities. If you ding Russia for its cyberattack on Estonia, shouldn’t you ding us for Stuxnet?
It's a fair question. The Obama administration debated this kind of stuff for a while. Once you go on the offense in cyber space, your adversaries are going to, too. I don't mean to portray the U.S. as an innocent actor here. We've done our own things to spark this conflict.
How would your book be written from their side? Could you understand the perspective of the Jim Sciutto of Russia?
I could if I was willing to swallow that my leaders are not elected, and that criticizing them might land me in prison. Listen, one motivation to write this book was because I’m a concerned American. I care about my country, and I'm not shy about saying that I think that we have more to offer the world. For me, there's not a gray area as to who's the better actor.
I say that as a person who’s witnessed it firsthand. I've lived in China, where I saw people carted away to prison for writing a controversial tweet. I've chased around the murderer of a Russian dissident in the U.K.
image
People hold banners of Jamal Khashoggi during a symbolic funeral prayer for the Saudi journalist, killed and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Getty Images
We may not openly kill our own citizens. But the current administration refuses to acknowledge the all-but-certain fact that the Saudi Crown Prince ordered the brazen murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.
Well, the president and his supporters presented a false choice with how to respond to the Khashoggi killing. They said we can't abandon a relationship with one of our few allies in the region because of this one murder, no matter how horrible. I do believe we stand for more than that. The U.S. has taken its allies to task before and have managed to maintain the relationship. But what is different about our system if we don't hold an ally accountable when they intentionally murder their own? If you're willing to give up that, you've given up the ball game.
So, we’ve given up the ball game?
On that issue, it seems so. Does Trump bring up human rights during negotiations with North Korea, or with China? No. He talks about trade. I'm not saying that we've abandoned human rights, but it's clearly not a priority for him.
How has the current administration has affected the Shadow War?
Each administration has thought they could get it right but didn’t. The Trump administration is full of contradictions on this issue. His senior intelligence officials say Russia interfered, and he says, “Maybe they didn’t.” Diplomats, secretaries of state, and military commanders say NATO is a bedrock that we’ll always stand behind, then the president accuses our allies of not paying their fair share. You have very public contradictions in this administration about America's foreign policy. That opens an opportunity to our adversaries to push the limits. But I’ll give credit where credit is due. Trump is confronting China in a way that no previous president has.
image
Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin shake hands before attending a joint press conference after a meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018.
Getty Images
About that: Last Friday, Trump escalated the trade war against China—which he began—by imposing tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. Today, China responded in kind, which will surely raise the cost on all sorts of things we depend on. One of Trump’s main motives is the theft of intellectual property from U.S. companies. Yet, during a press conference in Beijing in 2017, with Xi Jinping by his side, Trump said, "I don't blame China. Who can blame a country for being able to take advantage of another country for the benefit of its citizens?" How do you reconcile those two things?
Listen, the president is just flat-out wrong on much of this stuff. He’s even said that we're just as bad as the Russians. That’s the president of the United States saying that. I’m amazed his comment fell by the wayside like water off a duck’s back. His supporters find themselves in the position saying, "That's just Trump being Trump.” But it’s not clear that his art-of-the-deal method is working. Russia certainly hasn't changed its behavior.
What would losing the Shadow War look like, practically speaking?
I'm not Kissinger, but: Less influence abroad, and consequences for us and our allies. Arguably, an international system that doesn't maximize the public good.
Does Trump’s approach have any chance of working?
I don't know. Because what's the strategy? He hasn't articulated it, and he contradicts himself in the span of a day or even a tweet. We don't know what the strategy is. His own aides and cabinet members can't articulate it.
We’re almost two and half years into his presidency. Shouldn't we know by now?
Absolutely.
