Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas; Interview With Russian Journalist Mikhail Zygar; Interview With "Losing Big" Author Jonathan D. Cohen. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 14, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAJA KALLAS, E.U. FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF: If these tariffs are used against us, then we are, of course, protecting our interests.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trade wars and real wars. How will the world cope with Trump's on off policymaking? We have top E.U. diplomat Kaja Kallas on the program.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKHAIL ZYGAR, RUSSIAN JOURNALIST: Vladimir Putin has been watching Donald Trump for so many years and seeing him some kind of a soulmate, I guess.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- why Putin is pleased with Trump, but not for the reasons you might expect. I speak to exiled Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN D. COHEN, AUTHOR, "LOSING BIG": Without any intention on their part, they can sort of fall down this rabbit hole and develop really,
really severe mental health issues that will be with them for the rest of their life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Losing Big," author Jonathan D. Cohen tells Michelle Martin how Americans became addicted to online sports gambling and the real price
they're paying.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.
G7 foreign ministers are meeting against the ever-changing landscape of Trump's policies. And there is no better example of his administration's
erratic decision-making than in the host country itself, Canada, which is reeling from the shock of its neighbor starting a full-blown trade war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: The Canadian government has rightly retaliated and is rightly retaliating with our own tariffs that will have
maximum impact in the United States and minimum impact here in Canada. And my government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Europe faces a triple whammy. Trump tariffs, plus the shockwaves of suddenly being forced to fend for themselves and for Ukraine with
ministerial meetings in Paris to discuss next steps. All that as Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he supports the ceasefire proposal but
has a long list of reservations and conditions as expected.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): First of all, what are we going to do with this area in Kursk Oblast if we ceasefire for 30
days? What does it mean? That everybody there will just go free without a fine?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Kaja Kallas is the European Union's high representative for Foreign and Security Affairs. She was Estonia's prime minister until last
year. And she's in Quebec for the G7.
Kaja Kallas, welcome back to our program.
KAJA KALLAS, E.U. FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF: Good to be here.
AMANPOUR: You are there at a G7 meeting in perhaps the most hot trade war of our modern times, if ever. I don't know whether you've got any
precedent. Where is this going to end? How is this going to end?
KALLAS: Well, there are no winners in trade wars, that is very clear. We -- if we have a trade war with the United States, European Union, United
States, then who are laughing on the side is China, who is definitely benefiting from this. So, there are no winners. Eventually, the consumers
end up paying more, and we really don't want this.
AMANPOUR: Kaja Kallas, history tells that these protectionist moves are certainly, you know, from around the World War times, can lead to massive
depressions, wars, all the rest of it. Where are we, in your estimation, as to how this could affect whatever, the global economy and stability around
the globe?
KALLAS: Well, you are correct that these kind of steps will -- or have previously in history brought depression, brought different economic
stress, really, in different parts of the world. And that's why we are trying to prevent this at any cost to really show that this is not to the
benefit of our economies, our consumers and really trying to you know, make our case.
But it's clear that you know, if these tariffs are used against us, then we are, of course, protecting our interest. That is very clear. But I want to
stress that there are no winners in trade wars. That is very clear. And we want to avoid it.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Well, indeed from the E.U. Trade Commission came the statement that this is just a lose-lose situation and you need to get back into a
posture of trying to negotiate on these deals and make it win-win, if that's possible.
But you know, again, we have seen and we've reported, obviously you've been living it, this incredible whiplash. There's a tariff, then there's a
retaliation, then there's a suspension, then there's a threat of reciprocal. I mean, honestly, from one minute to the next, we're not even
sure what's happening.
Are you -- you guys who have to negotiate, do you have a rational plan? Are you dealing with rational actors?
KALLAS: Well, it's true that we hear this -- a lot of news coming in all the time. So, it's also, you know, very important for us to separate, you
know, the statements from the actual deeds and actual steps that follow. So, what we have done so far is to react on the actual steps that have been
taken towards European union. And of course, we have 27 countries. We will discuss what are measures really are. There are proposals on the table.
But I think, you know, it's also important to keep our heads cool and not to react on every statement that comes out, but really on the legislative
proposals that have actual effect.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, as we speak, let's go to the other issue, the real war that's happening on the -- essentially on Europe's doorstep between Russia
and Ukraine. What do you -- what are you hearing, if anything, about the Ukrainian-U.S. ceasefire proposal?
KALLAS: The talks in Jeddah were good and really the outcome of resuming the sharing of intelligence but also resuming the military aid reaching
Ukraine, this is very good. And like Secretary of State Rubio said the ball is now in Russia's court. So, we really want to see if they want to have
peace. I think the Ukrainians, on their side, have made the necessary steps.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you make of already, out of Russia, come somewhat conflicting messages? Because the president's envoy, Steve Witkoff, is
there, you've had a so-called Kremlin aide say that, you know, basically pour cold water over it, say this is just a way for Ukraine to re-arm, that
we want this, that, and the other, all their maximalist demands. In other words, not an unconditional, they want to attach a lot of conditions.
But almost immediately out pops Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, very close to Putin, and says hold on a second. What do you think is going on?
You've had to deal with the Russians for a long time, especially as Estonian prime minister.
KALLAS: Well, first, I want to stress that that, really, if Russia wants to end this war, they can stop bombing Ukraine and this war is over if they
withdraw their troops. So, they haven't really, you know, wanted peace.
But I mean, the messages that come out of Russia right now are also really showing that, you know, even if we have had ceasefires before, the Russians
are not really -- or have not really keeped -- kept their promises regarding the ceasefire agreement.
So, therefore, I think right now we need to be very firm that any kind of, you know, ceasefire that can't be coming with conditions, because all these
conditions just blurred the picture, either you want to end this war or you don't want to end this war. So, we need to be very firm.
AMANPOUR: You said after the debacle in Munich and the -- you know, the moment where it was clear that the administration, Trump administration was
moving first towards Putin and sidelining both Europe and Ukraine, that was a couple of weeks ago, you said there can be no quick deal because that
might be a dirty deal. Are you still feeling that concerned or do you feel that both Ukraine's voice and Europe's voice is in the mix right now, that
it has to be a proper, fair, and just deal?
KALLAS: Yes. Well, I spoke to the Ukrainians immediately after their talks ended in Jeddah and they were very happy about the outcome. So, I think
this is important where we really stand there. Of course, the Ukrainians want this war to end more than anybody because their civilian population is
being bombed every day. So, we need to do what we can in order to also pressure Russia to stop this war.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: OK. But you didn't answer my question. Do you think that we're headed to the kind of deal you expect to see in Europe expects or to a
quick deal that may not stand up?
KALLAS: Well, a quick deal is always when you just, you know, push Ukraine to give up, but that's not a good deal, not a good deal for Ukraine, not a
good deal for Europe, but also not a good deal for the global security, because then it really shows that, you know, might makes right. And if you
just use force, then you can get what you want.
I was just in the United Nations this week and I must say that a lot of countries around the world are very, very much worried what is the outcome.
Because if the outcome is that actually, you know, if you have enough, you power you can go for your neighbor's territories, then there are many, many
countries in the world who are at risk. And that's why we need to avoid that.
I think, right now, as these things are going, Ukrainians are standing strong. We are also, you know, thinking about and consulting with the
other, how we can support them more, to be in the stronger position. I think also we should put the pressure on Russia so that, you know, it would
be more equal and the deal would be sustainable and long-lasting peace.
AMANPOUR: Meantime, there you are at the G7 meeting. As you remember, Russia was eliminated from what became the G8 after it annexed Crimea.
There's also, as you know, a lot of talk from south of the border from the Trump administration about annexing Canada. Should the United States be
kicked out of the G7 if it decides to go ahead and annex Canada?
KALLAS: Well, we are not really commenting on this. We are respecting all the United Nation's principles when it comes to territorial integrity,
sovereignty off of countries. And therefore, I mean, we are around the table. We have different points where we disagree, but there are lots of
challenges in the world where we actually need to work together and where we agree. Let's focus on those.
AMANPOUR: So, you don't want to talk about it. I've noticed that I think you're wearing a Canadian maple leaf on your -- as a brooch. It may be
turned the upside-down way, but maybe not. But clearly, you feel you all as a group have to show solidarity with Canada.
KALLAS: Well, yes, we were just, you know, joking amongst ourselves that the German foreign minister and me, we are actually wearing the Canadian
colors for solidarity.
AMANPOUR: Let's get back to the Ukraine war, of course. Certainly, then- Prime Minister Trudeau came to the U.K. after the debacle between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. So, Canada also very concerned about how this
war plays out, obviously a member of NATO. Mark Rutte, this week, at the White House, talking to President Trump about NATO.
Where do you feel, where are you reading trump and his positioning on NATO now, right now, today?
KALLAS: Well, NATO needs to be stronger, that is very clear. And NATO is stronger if all the armies of NATO are stronger. What we are doing on the
European side, we are massively increasing our defense investments. And that has been also the call of President Trump when he was last (ph) in the
office, that Europeans and all the member states of NATO should do more.
So, the secretary general, Rutte, is meeting with President Trump. I'm sure that he also explains all the things that we already do in order to make
the most powerful defense alliance even more stronger.
AMANPOUR: And do you think that'll be enough to convince Trump? He talked, you know, recently about potentially not respecting Article 5, which is, as
you know, a pledge to come to the support of any member who's under attack. And I just wondered whether you think what you're doing, and also, could
you explain what the E.U. has decided? I believe there's some common fund or something whereby you can buy weapons or martial military, you know,
armaments and things for your own and Ukraine's security. What's the latest development?
KALLAS: Well, we have the initiative Rearm Europe, which is basically different elements how we can increase funding for the defense spending of
Europe. What more can we do, how we can more help Ukraine to buy ammunition, to buy the military equipment that they need and send it to
them? Because this the first frontline of European security as well.
[13:15:00]
And the other arm of it is how we can boost our defense industry, how we can do more for Europe's own security, because what we need to keep in mind
is that Russia has invested like over 9 percent of its GDP on the military. So, they would want to use it if there is a piece that that actually, you
know, grants them what they want, then they definitely want to continue. And then, it's a question for us how strong we are to really deter these
types of attacks.
AMANPOUR: NATO has suggested you all, E.U., strengthen ties with Turkey. It has the biggest standing army in NATO after the United States. Is that --
this according to the FT, is that correct? Do you -- have you had that approach from NATO? And can you imagine Turkey helping to secure Europe,
maybe even playing a role as peace enforcers if there's ever that situation between Russia and Ukraine?
KALLAS: As European Union, of course, we are strengthening our ties with Turkey as well when it comes to different cooperation points. Turkey is an
ally in NATO, a strong ally in NATO, and we are cooperating with them on different issues when it comes to what is happening in Syria, when it comes
to, you know, different conflicts also in Africa, where we are cooperating. So, definitely.
I think, in this very turbulent time, we need to find really places and build the partnerships with all the countries in the world to be stronger
whoever really wants to cooperate, who shares the same values.
AMANPOUR: And just lastly, on Gaza. In his Oval Office meeting with the Irish prime minister, Trump responded to a question about his, you know,
Riviera on the Middle East, and expelling Palestinians. He said, nobody is expelling any Palestinians. So, that's that. I don't know whether you
believe that to be the definitive line on that.
But with Israel denying humanitarian aid now, in violation of the ceasefire agreement, what more can the E.U. do, if anything, to try to get things
back on track and even lay the groundwork for what should have been the second phase of the ceasefire situation?
KALLAS: Yes. I mean, on Gaza, we are closely working with the regional actors and partners. So, really, Arab peace plan is there, how to really
reconstruct Gaza and do it so that the people can stay there. I think, you know, there are a lot of cooperation points. But what I want to stress is
that also the European position is that any humanitarian aid cannot be politicized. It has to reach the people in need in Gaza, and we are, you
know, constantly in contact with our counterparts in Israel also to stress this.
We are supporting the two-state solution. What means also supporting Palestinian Authority so that they can provide the services to the people.
But right now, it is extremely important that this -- that the aid is reaching the people and the humanitarian aid is not politicized.
AMANPOUR: Kaja Kallas, high representative of the E.U., thank you so much indeed for joining us.
KALLAS: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: The realignment of the United States away from its traditional allies has been a long-feared consequence of Trump's re-election. But in
the Kremlin, his victory is still being celebrated. This week, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the second Trump administration and its
tilt towards Moscow is a return to, quote, "normalcy" in the United States. And as Trump talks of peace in Ukraine, the narrative in Russia has changed
on a dime.
Mikhail Zygar is a Russian journalist sentenced in absentia to eight and a half years for criticizing Russia's war on Ukraine. Now, he's living in New
York, where I met him to talk about Putin's ambitions and the mood inside his home country.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Mikhail Zygar, welcome back to the program.
MIKHAIL ZYGAR, RUSSIAN JOURNALIST: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, here you are in the United States, and I have been struck by your writing about the election and about the war, Russia-Ukraine. You've
been saying that Trump's election is something that Russia has been embracing even before this dust up with Ukraine. Why?
ZYGAR: I think Vladimir Putin has been watching Donald Trump for so many years, and seeing him some kind of a soulmate, I guess. Both of them share
the same perception, same very cynical and non-ideological perception of the modern world.
[13:20:00]
And I will tell you even more from what I'm hearing from Moscow right now, they feel that that's the end of the United States as they used to be.
AMANPOUR: As the leader of the world?
ZYGAR: As the stronghold of liberal democracy.
AMANPOUR: OK.
ZYGAR: Because -- and they compare it to the collapse of Soviet Union. Because Soviet Union was the state based on ideology, and since the moment
people stopped believing in communism. Soviet Union was doomed to collapse. And finally, it collapsed because its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was
disillusioned with communism and stopped believing in communism and embraced Western ideology, which is liberal democracy. And that's some kind
of the same process we're watching right now.
AMANPOUR: But in reverse?
ZYGAR: In reverse. A lot of Americans don't seem to believe in liberal democracy. A lot of Americans say, publicly claim that, actually, democracy
does not exist. It's something very elitist, something very deep state Washington. And we see the new American leader, who is completely
disillusioned, or I don't know if he was illusioned, but he doesn't seem to believe in liberal democracy and he embraces new type of Russian ideology,
which is cynicism.
Vladimir Putin is practicing this very pragmatic form of brutal capitalism without human face, without paying attention to human rights or any kind of
values. And they think that's the same approach that is going to be the new ideology of Trump's America.
AMANPOUR: And I also think you and others have said, I mean, the former prime minister of Great Britain, after the debacle that Vance lectured,
Vice President Vance, his European allies about embracing essentially what amounts to hate speech and the kind of speech that political parties are
not really acceptable in Europe and embracing parties that are generally not accepted in Germany, for instance.
After that debacle, a British prime minister said, you know, this signals a dramatic realignment of the United States away from the transatlantic
alliance and the democracies and towards Russia. And he said, Putin and Xi of China must be dancing with joy. Do you see that happening? Because the
whole narrative has changed in Russia.
ZYGAR: I think we even discussed it with you, last time we talked, that Putin's plan actually was to have new Yalta. And he has been talking about
that --
AMANPOUR: Let's just explain what Yalta is.
ZYGAR: Yes, yes. Since 2007, when he -- for the first time, had his legendary Munich speech, at Munich Security Conference, he started calling
for the new world order. And he says that the treaty that was signed and the treaty about the new -- the division of the world that was signed in
Yalta in 1945 by Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, it's not relevant. Obviously, it's not relevant after the collapse of Soviet Union, but he
wanted -- he asked to set up the new world order.
And he has this vision, in his imagination, that picture him, American president and Chinese leader sitting together and dividing the world. And
probably Donald Trump is the only American president who fits to this picture. We cannot imagine any other person to be there.
And I think I know that the proposal to organize, to start thinking about that kind of new Yalta, that proposal was transferred from Vladimir Putin
to Donald Trump. And I guess it sounds perfect for Donald Trump. That's a great, fertile opportunity.
AMANPOUR: Have you seen -- have you noticed -- you're studying -- you know, you're out, you're living out essentially in self-imposed exile, and you've
been sentenced in absentia for your opposition to the war, right?
ZYGAR: Eight and a half years.
AMANPOUR: Eight and a half years, along with other Russian intellectuals who are here, also U.S. citizens. Have you been surprised by what has been
termed as like a head spinning change of narrative in Moscow and on state television and in state media since the debacle in the Oval Office and
since Trump started to use Russian Putin talking points to describe the Ukraine war and since he appeared to change sides?
ZYGAR: That was amazing. You know, for many years, we've been watching anti-American Russian propaganda. And Russia was the leading force in the
global anti-Americanism. And Putin saw himself as the symbol of that movement, and they switched overnight.
[13:25:00]
And I was so -- I enjoyed watching Margarita Simonyan, the head of RT, who started praising Donald Trump and explaining to the audience that was
completely unprepared, that actually he's a very good and decent man. He's not just a petty businessman. No, he's a very noble statesman. And it was
amazing. Russian propaganda is praising Donald Trump.
We know that the newborn baby in Siberia was called Trump. And his father is Vladimir. So, he's Trump Vladimirovich. Yes, it's something very
unusual.
AMANPOUR: And how do you think they're going to tell the Russian people and what's the reaction from the Russian people? Because even Dmitry Peskov,
who, as you know, Putin's adviser and spokesman for years, decades, said that, oh, you know -- and so did Lavrov, the foreign minister, U.S. foreign
policy or policy is beginning to align with our point of view here in the Kremlin. This a big switch. How are people taking it in Russia?
ZYGAR: For many people that was a pure joy. Because there are a lot of people who really want this war to stop. And there are a lot of people who
really want January 2022 back, who want to --
AMANPOUR: Go back to before the war?
ZYGAR: Yes, yes. To have business as usual, to have possibility to travel abroad, to Western Europe, to America, and they would love any kind of
reconciliation. For some people who are brainwashed, that's a nightmare. But at the same time, you know, for the majority of political elite, there
is still the paradox, because they know, from what I hear from my sources, that President Putin doesn't want any kind of peace. And his final goal of
all his contacts and all his negotiations is not the peace with Ukraine. And actually, he doesn't even want to have talks with Ukraine.
He wants -- from the beginning, he was willing to have talks with America. He wants to negotiate with Donald Trump. And --
AMANPOUR: What does he want then? If he doesn't want peace, what does he want?
ZYGAR: I hear that he loved his plan A so much, and he doesn't have plan B. So, although his plan A was to take Kyiv within three days and to have
Zelenskyy removed, and he still wants that in the end. So -- and he doesn't feel that he's losing. He thinks that Russian army is doing OK. Slowly, but
steadily advancing. Without American help Ukraine is seen as even weaker. So, he's OK with continuing this war. He has reshaped Russian economy
completely to serve for the army, for the front line.
He needs this war because that's the ideal instrument to run the country. To get rid of the dissent, to have everyone under control, to make sure
that there is no mutiny in his inner circle.
AMANPOUR: So, he does not want a sovereign, independent, democratic Ukraine?
ZYGAR: Absolutely. And he doesn't plan to have real negotiations. So, I think what we're seeing right now is some kind of a game. He's trying to
provoke Zelenskyy to refuse first.
AMANPOUR: Do you think Putin is sitting in the Kremlin thinking, I can play this American administration, or does he think, this administration is on
my side, I can get them to agree with what I want?
ZYGAR: You know, I think that he's been there for 25 years. So, yes, he definitely thinks that he's smarter than anyone. And he's more experienced
with anyone. And he knows that unlike any other leader, he's not going to expire. He doesn't have limits of his presidential terms. So, yes, he
thinks that he can play with anyone.
And he would love to have different tracks negotiations with America about America, about economic cooperation, about global security, and different
track negotiations about Ukraine. And unfortunately, I guess, I think for Donald Trump, the idea of some kind of peace treaty in Ukraine is something
he wishes to see. But that's unacceptable for Vladimir Putin. So, I think he --
AMANPOUR: Because Vladimir Putin wants a surrender, essentially, a capitulation?
ZYGAR: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Even if Trump says, and his people say, well, everybody's going to have to make compromises, can you see Putin making compromises?
ZYGAR: He doesn't need it. Because, for him, the best-case scenario is the war that continues. So, what kind of a compromise between war and peace can
you find?
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And I wonder how you perceive the body language and the language that President Trump uses. For instance, the debacle in the Oval Office
with President Zelenskyy, many of the other things he said. When Putin hears him saying that kind of stuff, does he say, oh, that's like me, or
was Putin -- Putin wasn't really like that at the beginning.
ZYGAR: Oh, Putin was trying to look like a very decent gentleman for the first 15 years, I would say, especially during his first presidential term,
he was trying to mimic Tony Blair. He was -- he really liked the way Tony Blair was looking and he was trying to look like him and to talk a bit like
George W. Bush. He was not so religious, but he tried to pretend.
So, yes, he was learning from another, from other teachers. And yes, he has become the real political bully during his last presidential terms. But
even now, he doesn't use that kind of rhetoric Donald Trump and Elon Musk are using. So, that's -- there is some kind of difference in manners, I
would say.
But I think he is -- he doesn't think that he taught them to talk like that or to behave like this. He thinks that he was right. Because he always --
he was always sure that it's only a hypocrisy. That no one really believes in democracy. That when American -- when all kind of American
administrations were preaching him about human rights, he was thinking to himself, OK, but if I scratch, they are all autocrats. They are -- they all
want to have dictatorship. He was sure that George W. Bush would have never leave White House.
AMANPOUR: Well, he was wrong.
ZYGAR: Yes. But he was 100 percent sure that George W. Bush was forever. And he was shocked when he realized that the War Emperor of the world
resigned and like lost his popularity after Katrina Hurricane. That was his version. But still, he -- his mind -- according to his mindset, house of
cards is the way how American politics has always worked.
So, now he's watching --
AMANPOUR: The total cynical, real politics, some are now calling it, you know, Neanderthal realism --
ZYGAR: Yes. So, now, he's watching this and he says, oh, I knew that. I've been warning you that they are just like us.
AMANPOUR: And one last question. You know, people like Putin, even Orban, they all have this sort of central guiding philosophy that anti-LGBTQ. They
are all about cultural wars. They're all about family values, right? That's their domestic. Here, it's anti-woke, anti-DEI. And it's causing huge
upheaval in this country. But a lot of it is sponsored and pushed by bots and social media and interference, how much of it is genuine and how much
of it is manufactured, do you think?
ZYGAR: You know, I've -- I know that for Putin that was the deliberate shift from -- because in the beginning of his presidency, he was willing to
see the liberal educated middle class as his power base, and he was expecting those people who benefited the most from the beginning of his
presidency to love him, to thank him for his brilliance. But these were the people who were the first to protest against him and to betray him, to want
him out. And that was -- it happened in 2011, 2012, when he realized that he needed different people. He needed less educated, less wealthy, more
conservative.
And he started completely different ideological policy. He started promoting family values, conservative values. And that was the moment when
he started learning from Americans. It's very -- it's not always a coincidence. I know that Russian propagandists, Russian TV anchors were
watching one of the American TV channels.
AMANPOUR: Which one?
ZYGAR: You guess which one.
AMANPOUR: I think you mean Fox, right?
ZYGAR: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: And the Christian Conservatives.
ZYGAR: They were watching Bill O'Reilly, and they were trying to learn from him and to mimic and to perform the flames of hatred from the eyes of the
news anchor. It was not a coincidence. Putin's team was watching the far- right in America and were learning from different far-right groups trying to promote those family values because, you know, Russia is not really the
place where all those values could flourish.
[13:35:00]
Russia is not religious. That was the first year of the invasion, 2022. And Russian army was suffering -- was humiliated in summer of 2022. And in the
middle of that, Russian parliament votes for the anti-transgender law, banning all transitions, all transgender people, which was probably the
most important issue in the country at that moment. But it was not the issue. It was not discussed. It was imported from America. And he -- you
know, there is a very important mental connection between those sources.
AMANPOUR: Mikhail Zygar, thank you so much.
ZYGAR: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, to a huge and potentially dangerous market in U.S. sports gambling. It's grown massively since a 2018 Supreme Court ruling allowed
states to legalize it. But at what cost to people's lives? Author and historian Jonathan Cohen investigates this in his new book. And he tells
Michel Martin just what he's found.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks Christiane. Jonathan Cohen, thanks so much for joining us.
JONATHAN D. COHEN, AUTHOR, "LOSING BIG": Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: You know, if you watch any sports on TV, any sports on TV you just see betting all over the place. I mean, you see, you know, ads for betting,
you see shows kind of built around betting. You know, at one minute it seemed like gambling and sports were like oil and water, they did not mix.
When did this change?
COHEN: It all changed or it started to change on May 14, 2018 when the Supreme Court decision Murphy versus NCAA unleashed the floodgates for
states to legalize sports betting, and I'll spare you the legalese, but effectively states had been banned from legalizing sports betting, and the
Supreme Court overturned that federal regulation, and now states were free to regulate or legalize sports betting as they so chose.
MARTIN: Just briefly, if you would, what were the grounds? Like, what was the argument there?
COHEN: The grounds actually had basically nothing to do with sports betting in and of itself. In 1992, Congress passed a law, the Professional and
Amateur Sports Protection Act, PASPA, that said, that barred states from legalizing gambling, and the Murphy versus NCAA 2018 decision focused not
on gambling itself, but on this commandeering statute from the 10th Amendment. The idea that basically Congress can't tell states what to do
and that its states have a rights to legalize gambling if they so choose.
MARTIN: How big is sports betting in the United States?
COHEN: So, over the last just seven years, Americans have already bet around $500 billion on sports betting. And the estimations are that as many
as 20 to 40 percent of American adults have placed at least one bet on sports. And all of this before the States of California, Texas, and Georgia
legalized sports betting. So, when those states and other states like them get in the game, it's going to get even bigger.
MARTIN: The title of your book is "Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling." So, what's the problem as you see it?
COHEN: And just to be clear, I'm actually in favor of sports betting and I think it's totally harmless and totally fun for someone to bet $5 on the
Cubs to win or whatever team that they choose and to get a little more excitement out of sports from betting on sports.
My issue is the way that this was unfurled and this way this was legalizing rolled out was, as the word I've chosen to use is reckless. It was sort of
a full-on embrace or a full -- all-out blitz, if you want to sort of use the sports terminology, with no consideration for the negative
externalities, for the after effects, for the consequences for people who might develop gambling addictions, for young men in particular who might
bet more than they can afford without any information, without any laying of the groundwork for how we could do this safely.
MARTIN: OK. So, let's kind of walk through what are the problems as far as you see it.
COHEN: The problem are the effects that the current version of sports betting, and I'll say even specifically -- more specifically online sports
betting has on people. And by people, I disproportionately mean young men between the ages of 18 and 35, who have sort of born the biggest
consequences from the legalization of sports betting. And the very sort of specific concrete consequences are rising rates of economic insecurity, you
know, huge prevalence of young men, in particular, betting more money than they can afford or more money than they have, a large percentage have
admitted that they have been unable to pay one of their bills because of the amount of money that they bet every month.
[13:40:00]
Rising rates of bankruptcies, of credit card delinquencies in states that have legalized online sports betting. As well as sort of the most dramatic
evidence, which would be rising rates of problem gambling as much as -- there are lots of different indicators of this, you know, calls to
hotlines, text to gambling hotlines, and then something called self- exclusion. So, if I decide, you know, I really just can't control my betting, I need to register with the state and let the, and the state is
going to cut me off and they will not let me legally bet anymore, the rates of people in states like Pennsylvania that have self-excluded just in the
last seven years outpaced the entire 12-year period prior to legalization. So, we're getting more self-exclusion just in the last couple of years than
we saw for a decade plus prior to sports betting legalization.
MARTIN: You profile a couple of people that make the point that you've been making here. One of them was a young guy named Kyle. Why don't you tell me
about him?
COHEN: Yes. So, Kyle was really excited for Colorado to get in the game and to legalize sports betting. And when the state did so, in 2020, he
downloaded, you know, every different sports book app, took advantage of every bonus offer. He quickly ran into one of the problems I described
where he sort of didn't realize how much he was betting and couldn't pay his rent one month and had to ask his parents to help him out because he
had bet more than he could afford.
And he has been able to stop and he'll go six months and he'll fall down this really intense gambling rabbit hole where gambling basically consumes
his entire life, and he lost a job because he was in one of these rabbit holes. And when he was up when he's winning, he sort of had this
overconfidence and then when he would lose, it just sort of shattered his sort of sense of self and his mental health and would lead to substance
abuse and all sorts of other attendant problems.
So, he has since moved back with his parents outside of Wichita, but is still going through these exact phases where he'll go for a few months with
no gambling, and then lo and behold, the NFL season starts. I know he can't wait to bet on the Chiefs. And here he goes again. He sort of has been
unable to bet safely. And this someone who, by his own admission, would not have bet otherwise, if it had not been available sort of legally on his
phone.
You know, when he goes to a casino, he's really been able to control himself. This not a gambling problem. It's an online access problem that is
the root of his issue.
MARTIN: Interesting. Why is that? You're saying it's because of the online access that it became so consuming. Why would that be?
COHEN: Yes, there are many reasons. One of them is the fact that when you're betting online, you can bet on anything. And I don't just mean you
can bet on any game, but you can bet on any result within any game and sort of micro betting. You can bet on, of course, the results of the game
itself, but also individual players and their results. And then when the games are over, you know, let's say at 1:00 in the morning or so, you can
bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton.
And people Kyle who sort of developed gambling addictions, they're not actually looking to bet on sports because they love sports at that point,
they're looking for action. They're looking for a chance to risk and win money and sort of satisfy their need for action, which is what sort of
gamblers -- problem gamblers are actually addicted to.
MARTIN: The thing I have to ask, though, is that in your own reporting indicates that only something like 3 percent of Americans fall into this
category of a problem gambler. And I think some reasonable person might say, well, I'm sorry, that's 3 percent. This actually a small percentage of
people who are participating who fall into this problem category. So, what would you say to that?
COHEN: I would say a few things. First of all, problem gambling is the kind of issue that has a lot of societal side effects. So, there's a study from
Australia that every person who's addicted to gambling, either through their financial needs or their psychological needs, their addiction will
affect five or six other people. So, all you need -- you can do the math of 3 percent of the American population, each of them affecting our adult
population, each of them affecting five to six other people, all of a sudden, we're talking about tens of millions of people who have been
affected one way or another. by problem gambling.
MARTIN: Say more about what you think some of the other problems are. And then, there's another guy that you profile named Arthur, who was embezzling
money in order to support his gambling habit. And that was a whole, you know, chain of events that I think people could anticipate. But what are
some of the other negative effects that you see?
COHEN: Gambling addicts, people with a gambling problem have a higher rate of suicide and suicidal ideation than any other form of addiction. Because
it is a deeply sort of shameful addiction that we have not sort of societally, I think, destigmatized. There's a sense that because it's a
financial addiction that if the person were to, you know, be gone, that their addiction would be gone or all their problems would be gone. And so,
there -- so, that, I think, for the gambler themselves, is a huge problem.
And societally, I mean, I think we should all wonder or ask ourselves if sports betting was nominally legalized for the purposes of raising state
revenue and for the purposes of making money for government. But I think it's worth asking ourselves if it is worth exploiting or preying on these
vulnerable people or addicted people for the purpose of raising a little bit of extra money for the general fund.
MARTIN: And why do you say that? Are you saying it's because the bulk of the revenues come from a very small group of people?
[13:45:00]
COHEN: That's exactly right. So, I mean, just to take the case of NFL bettors, the 3 percent you mentioned, the top 3 percent of NFL bettors in
the 2023-2024 season accounted for 82 percent of sports book revenue. So, it's not an accident that there are people developing gambling addiction,
that there are people betting more than they can afford, it is the fundamental business model.
A decline in rates of problem gambling would dramatically impact the bottom line of sports betting and of sports betting companies, and they have a
direct financial incentive and a need almost for the perpetuation of people betting more money than they can afford.
MARTIN: And when you took that data to the sports betting companies and you presented these findings and said, hey, your business model depends on
actually people problematically gambling, it's not your casual, hey, I'm having a Super Bowl party, let's throw some money, and it's a small group
of people who probably have a problem, what do they say?
COHEN: So, they -- well, they insist, first of all, that it is not in their short-term financial interest to extract money for betters. Of course, it
actually is. But they insist that what they want to build is a long-term sustainable business where people are betting comfortably and they're not
sort of extracting money from Kyle and extracting money from Andrew and sort of moving on.
Important fact, that is, of course, what is actually happening and what they've actually built. But they insist that what they want is something
that is long-term that is sustainable. And these companies repeatedly pointed this idea of responsible gambling or responsible gaming, which is
their pitch. That they'll tell players in advertising or on the apps to play responsibly, which is, they're sort of -- they see it as a get out of
jail free card. They say, oh, we told you to bet responsibly. We're campaigning on betting responsibly.
The flip side of that or the implication of that is if you didn't bet responsibly, it's your fault, and that we told you to bet responsibly. And
therefore, actual responsible behavior is in the hands of the individual bettor, not in the hands of the billion-dollar corporation enticing them to
bet.
MARTIN: The companies, I think, would argue that they are following the law, that they are raising revenue for states and that, you know, the
people who are gambling are adults who are making the decision. It's just entertainment like any other kind of form of entertainment. What's wrong
with that?
COHEN: Yes, I think that's true. And again, I'm in favor of people who want to gamble -- gambling. I'm not in favor of people who have had their
dopamine pathways rewired and are on the road to addiction being bombarded with advertising or with VIP hosts sort of texting them in the middle of
the night, asking them if they want to bet or if they want to keep betting. I think people should be free to do what they want to do, but we should be
able to protect the people who are the most vulnerable at the same time.
MARTIN: Are these betting apps required to issue warnings, for example, like, you know, like on a cigarette pack, it's required now that they say,
you know, this addictive, it can be harmful to your health? Don't these sports betting apps have similar product warnings now?
COHEN: I mean, of course, if you scroll to the bottom of your Fandrill app, you'll see the number for the responsible gambling hotline that -- for you
to call, and they'll, in fact, put their responsible gambling tools front and center. But to me, that sort of speaks to the point of they know that
these responsible gambling tools are not effective and data shows that they are -- that only a fraction of players actually use the responsible
gambling tools that limit their own play. So, all these tools are optional.
The companies love to boast, you know, that all the company -- all these players looked at their total amount bet over the course of the last month
or the last year, which is one of our responsible gambling tools. But the real tools that actually help people gamble responsibly, which are
available on the apps are things like time limits, like deposit limits, like locking yourself out at certain hours. And data indicates that a
fraction -- and in some cases, a fraction of bettors have ever used these tools because they're completely voluntary.
And then, not to mention the fact that once you've encountered some harm, once you've developed a sort of a borderline addiction, you're never going
to sort of limit yourself artificially and premeditatively. It's just not realistic about how these things are going to work. And yet, the company
sort of hang their hats and they say, oh, we're going above the law, we're going above the requirements from states because we are making all these
tools available, but they're not actually making them appealing or make them interesting or make them in such a way that people will actually use
them.
MARTIN: And what you're saying, though, I think you said is that actually when the states have some -- basically, you have the option of barring
yourself from participating in some of these apps, you're saying people are actually doing it. Why is that?
COHEN: Right. And one of the reasons I'm in favor of a federal framework is I can exclude myself in the State of Connecticut, but that doesn't involve
excluding myself in the State of Massachusetts. So, a federal framework of some kind wouldn't say, OK, John has decided he can't control his betting.
He is now banned at all 39 states that offer legalized gambling from legalized gambling services. And I think that is -- so, a state-by-state
approach is helpful to an extent, but only takes us so far.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: It's so interesting, Jonathan, because it's like -- it seems like we're having a lot of conversations as a culture with how we navigate this
world of like social media and, you know, just the online experience. Do you put this kind of -- kind of hesitancy to deal with gambling and the
harms of gambling for the people for whom it is a harm, is that part of our kind of American kind of libertarianism, let people do what they want, or
is it you think, in general, that we're just not really sure how to deal with all these new technologies? Like, what do you think?
COHEN: Yes, I think it's a great question. I think supports gambling hits at the exact sort of center of those two where we were OK with gambling and
we were OK with people gambling as much as they wanted, generally speaking, but never before has gambling been as dangerous for the gambler as it is
now. Never before have -- you know, the Las Vegas founders would drool at the amount of data that DraftKings and Fanduel have about every single
person who's ever opened their app.
And the consequences of that for gamblers is really dangerous. And it's really easy, as a result, for -- through marketing, through enticements,
through other means of people betting more than -- you know, in their sober state than they would intend to.
So, I think -- I mean, generals -- generally, agree with you, sort of inclined towards this libertarian streak of, oh, let's let people gamble,
but the technology and the technological aspects of modern sports gambling seems like a bridge too far.
MARTIN: I know that in the book you have some recommendations about what you think would kind of mitigate the harm for the people who are most at
risk. What are some of those steps?
COHEN: I would say there are two sort of big categories. The first would be legislative and on the policy side. And these are things that I don't think
have to happen through regulation. I think that companies could implement them themselves. And if they choose not to, then, as you said, the states
could or the federal government could.
These would be things like limiting the number -- the amount of deposits a player can make within a certain number of -- a certain period. The --
limiting, let's say, the amount of money they're allowed to deposit over a certain amount of time, maybe making them prove that they can afford
exactly how much they're betting over a given period.
And then, also, shortening the list of betting options. I don't think any single person in America needs to be able to bet on adult -- on Malaysian
women's doubles badminton at 3:00 in the morning. You know, Kyle, for example, was betting on minor league British darts at 2:00 in the morning
because it was the only thing that he could bet on. And I just think what those games are is a trap for problem gamblers that make a small amount of
money for companies, but induce a huge amount of harm for the bettors themselves.
So, again, deposit limits, affordability checks and a reduction in the list of betting options I think would be, sort of, three that stand out to me on
the policy side. And there's a whole other category that we referred to earlier about de-stigmatization and about sort of conversations that I
think parents need to start having with their kids, particularly the young men, you know, teenage boys, about gambling, because all the messaging
they're getting about gambling right now is from Kevin Hart and LeBron James and Charles Barkley during commercials, and it's telling them that
gambling is really, really fun and that they can win money, and if they have -- that they're so smart and they know all about sports and they can
turn that hunch into money.
And I think they need some counter programming. They need to be told, first of all, that gambling can be addictive and second of all, how easily and
without any intention on their part, they can sort of fall down this rabbit hole and develop really, really severe mental health issues that will be
with them for the rest of their life.
MARTIN: Jonathan Cohen, thank you so much for talking with us.
COHEN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tributes have flowed all week for, quote, "a fearless storyteller" who laid bare the harsh realities of apartheid
through his plays. That is how South Africa's culture minister is paying tribute to playwright and director Athol Fugard, who died aged 92 last
weekend.
Pending more than 30 plays during his career, he was best known for titles like "The Blood Knot." It's the first play in South Africa with a black and
white actor, which Fugard himself performed in. It was an unflinching look at how institutionalized racism consumed those who live under it. Here's
Fugard speaking about his performance back in 1985.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ATHOL FUGARD, SOUTH AFRICAN PLAYWRIGHT: In order to play that role and to arrive at that ugliness, at that degree of ugliness, I have to explore
potentials in myself for prejudice that I try to keep at bay, at other times in my life. And it's a little scary as an experience to have to hand
myself over with total conviction, with no reservations, to hate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Athol Fugard's lifetime of work, his connection to his homeland, and his searing meditations on how apartheid distorted South Africa's very
humanity resonated around the world.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all over social media.
Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
