english shock to nearby shop owner on union of holy worries, whether her son and daughter will be able to get the education they need. we are sofa and loads in dismay. i did. yeah. i played bad school. we thought our fled to sailors. john may appear in san our land in a country where so many people are hoping for change. they're also apprehensive about what these elections wiggling hammer, jim, dawn and vizier, a butcher. ah, hello again. i'm elizabeth ron m dot harvard. the top stories on al jazeera ukrainians had marked one years from the start of russia's invasion, speaking at an event to mark the anniversary president vladimir lensky pledge to do every thing to secure victory this year or fears. fighting as continuing on the front lines on the european union has become the latest western power to impose a new round of sanctions against russia. the eas, as it wants to hinder the kremlin ability to fund its war and staff rush of technology and spare parts for its military. earlier, the u. s. and coordination with g 7 countries also announced new sanctions targeting moscow. and un secretary general, antonio quoterush said that while the guns are talking now the road to peace as through diplomacy and accountability. over the past year, these girls who as old, more than 40 votes on ukraine, the girls are talking now. but in the ends, we know, we all know that the best of diplomacy on the comparability is the road to adjust and sustainable peace be seen line with un charge of international law and the assa, those resolution of the general assembly. we must prevent further escalation, the leader of russia's wagner mercenary group, says it's taken full control of a village near the eastern city of buck month. the village of bert keep co nice, just outside back more, which has seen intense fighting. ukraine says it's armed forces forced back against attacks near the village. and other news, at least one person has died in the mass of one to storm, that's raging across the united states. storm has knocked out power to nearly a 1000000 homes and businesses. it's also caused road closures and thousands of flights have been cancelled. well, those are the headlines. do stay with us on al jazeera up front is coming up next. in indonesia spun face more and more women for me stuff that through both crowds and criticism. when i, when i meet the rebel bike as risking life and we didn't shake they drink on al jazeera in 1971. a military analyst by the name of daniel ellsberg leaked to the press. a 7000 page top secret pentagon study on covering years of official lies about u. s. military involvement in the vietnam war. the leak documents known as the pentagon papers were instrumental in exposing the scope and strategy behind the u. s. war in the region. and many at the time, believe the big change, how the world viewed war decades later as conflict rage on and ukraine, you have been in ethiopia just to name a few. the decision making process behind wars remains as mercury as what we do know is that billions of dollars is spent on weapons and defense contracts every year, making conflict incredibly profitable result. so will benefit from war and who are the biggest players behind the war machine? and up front special daniel ellsberg. ah, daniel ellsberg, thank you so much for joining me on up front. thank you for having a large part of your life's work. has been committed to not only raising awareness about the dangers of nuclear weapons, but also the money behind them. in 20. 20 is. the pandemic raged the 9 nuclear weapons. states collectively spent an estimated $72000000000.00 on nuclear weapons . and we're now living in a time when the danger of nuclear war, of course, has spite. where does this leave the movement for nuclear disarmament given how much money is at play and all of this, what was kept us from having any real effect on reducing the danger of nuclear war all these years? no one was quite effective in helping stop a above ground testing. and even the underground testing was actually. but in other respects, it really hasn't been very effective. and i don't think the movement was as conscious as it should be of the money behind. as in the effect that had on congress, they really acted as so it was just a question, what people watch, which was tool void nuclear war. or rob, i just political of strategic aspects of it is not needed. it's dangerous and so forth. that it came very little attention to the role of companies like owing lockheed raytheon, general dynamics and job. he is, if far they really want to factor. it's like talking about climate without talking about the exxon corporation or shell or chevron. and actually that is the weight climate is talked about pretty much we just don't face fact that we are facing a large flows of money directed at keeping the status quo, which is the status quo of extreme nuclear danger, especially in times of crisis like this. and of climate movement toward an abyss, basically the end of our current civilization, or creech, we shuffling with people around the world in talk about the threat of nuclear war in this abyss that we're headed toward that certainly a piece of another piece of it is war in armed conflict that's taking place right now is plaguing multiple countries. you can see that ukraine, you got yemen, you got some malia, you got the ethiopian list, goes on. but behind wars like that are a weapons industry that you just alluded to. that was worth $531000000000.00 worldwide in 2020. and as of this recording, while the basin of ukraine intensifies the stock prices of general dynamics like he martin, as you mentioned, northrop grumman, arethia, and they recently hit their 5 year hive. so as we talk about war, we also have several who benefits from war. can you help me unpack that a little bit? who's really benefited? is the old earth, latin silken coolly bono, who benefits? going all the way back when you can name was just going the last century world war one. the loans by j. p. morgan to the british for arms, for the british, it had to deal or even had lost the war to some extent. j. p. morgan would have gone bankrupt and wilson, our president, could not allow that to happen. that would have been a financial disaster. and that goes on from there on, in particular whoa, whoa, who benefited from vietnam going on as long as it did? or if kind of stand right now, the war that we're supporting in yemen through arms to saudi arabia and the u. e is keeping it a truly genocidal war. going on are enormous massacre. and i think with very little benefit except to the arms manufacturers. people ask, why don't we learn from our failures in vietnam and afghanistan and elsewhere in the answer is, who has to listen to learn? those wars were very profitable for the people you name for lockheed raytheon knows will come in and the others are. they have anything to learn. i'm afraid that right now, there's 2 major purposes that will keep the war that can keep the war and ukraine going. as long as the war in afghanistan, not in the way that is being waged now. but by a kind of guerrilla, we're that we're supporting that we support, as we did against the soviets in afghanistan for 10 years. and the f ukrainian people would be ground to bits in the course of that as the afghans were. and yet it's very comfortable for people who are supplying those weapons and keep going. there is one other major motives that affects these things in particular in europe . and that is that r u. s. role in europe who are not after all, a european nation. and we have no particular rule in a european union, but in nato, that's as the mafia says. cosa nostra our thing. we control nato pretty much, and nato gives us an excuse and a reason to sell enormous amounts of arms to now to the formerly warsaw pact, nations which had only 2nd raid or obviously soviet weapons altogether. from the moment that the berlin wall came down, lockheed representatives were in warsaw showing them on a need for f, 20 tunes. and for other weapons right there. against who, as the russians are reasonably asked, actually, russia is an indispensable enemy in europe. and nothing else can rancho, it's the same novel enemy that, that, that's, that fascinating language. break that down for me, the, an indispensable. and what does that mean? it means that you can't really justify new trident submarines or i, she be m's that northrop grumman is making a whole new life she be up against ian, or isis, or i, al, kato, ah, nature's don't cutters. as rationale for multi 1000000000 now dollar arms budget. only russia has the targets, any sophisticated arms to fight against. you don't need advance 5th generation fighters against people who don't have any aircraft or fighters of their own, or sophisticated ones. but russia and now china. and for the future in particular, to offer noxious arrival or a competitor, but shown who could be painted as an enemy against whom you have to defend. and of course, put now in the last shoe once has just been a bonanza for the armed people. because last you've made a russia look an offensive i enemy of some kind who has to be defended against, with the latest weapons, with new weapons. and of course, russia has its military industrial complex to maintenance fast. they remind me of the black arts poet, gills got herons that everybody loves peace. the problem is you can't make no money off of it. you know, in the past few months, more than 5600000000 dollars has been poured into ukraine in the form of military aid from the u. s. from the u. k. and from the e. u. we seen similar situations in the past when u. s. arms were used by libyan in syrian opposition groups, but what happens when those conflicts are over or seemingly over? oh, where does the weapons go? iraq church, it's a long time before these contracts are over. as you know, in afghanistan, it went on for 20 years. and it could good much longer. in libya, what we did was supply a lot of weapons to people who in turn. so some 2 other insurgencies of the m terrors groups and others throughout africa and elsewhere. and of course, our efforts in afghanistan armed in effect against the soviets isis, or i'll should say al cater and then later isis. so he things have low back effects . ah, heaping in my a didn't these amps industry. so it would be wrong to say they didn't invade ukraine. cooking did that. however, they, in their people, they were influencing and the government were willing to risk a war like this coming from their policies, which were in fact provocative. in terms of making it likely that the russians, any russian leader would eventually react against it, however illegally. just as we reacted when khrushchev put missiles in cuba, jewish retires, and those missiles did not, in fact, threaten our security. and i say that as someone who was looking at precisely a problem in the pentagon, at that time working for his mcnamara said, hey, it's not a security problem, missiles into what? it's a political problem. critical, good. but i want to nick, this is somewhat at this stage, foreseeable, right? i mean after thing, what happens in syria with thing? what happens in libby or we, as you've done, we could go back decade prior. the weapons end up in the hands of folk who as physically we wouldn't want to have them. and yet we continue either to fund them directly or by proxy. so i guess the question for me is, why do we allow it to happen in ultimately? what happens to these weapons? what kind of considerations given to what happens to these weapon? well, it comes down to who the we is that we're talking about. i, it's not just, it's not a century, the taxpayers or the citizens who are, by the way, regrettably willing to, she had deaths of others who don't look like us. ukraine is getting much concern about the casualties in the war crimes because it is not on brown muslims that are being victimized. sure. but by the russians in this case. but it's white christians and that they're like us and to see they're in such anguish and terror that creates a public pressure that i wasn't here before. but in all of these other cases. and so should, oh, what's the problem? we hear that matters. the ones that provide the large campaign contributions and it provides the personnel at high levels and these ranks benefit fine from them. there's no problem. i may not be very successful, but he failing war is just as profitable as a winning one. in fact, in someplace better cause it goes on forever. as you say, the winning is over tree with when you say the libby is, it is the prime example. i where and you could say to some extent, afghanistan, where the weapons fanned out to other people that provided opponents to an adversaries. but is that bad? multiple adversaries are also good for the military industrial complex, not only in our country and in europe as well. it's not only americans who sold these weapons, though it is mainly these oversee the french, the others. and the russians have big arms markets in the world. according to the institute for policy studies last year, the average american taxpayer gave about $2000.00 to the military with over $900.00 going to corporate military contractors. in contrast, the average taxpayer contributed about $27.00 to the centers for disease control and prevention and barely $5.00 to renewable energy. how do you advocate for peace when so much taxpayer money is going to will call it the 5th republicans in particular, are very resistant to spending on social welfare or of any kind for people or anything that in any way seems to compete with private industry. the one thing you can get republicans to budget money for is allegedly national security, even though almost none of these weapons actually add or even relevant to our national security. but they are relevant to making threats against russian. you need russia later, china will be a big enough militarily to serve the purpose of the necessary, the indispensable enemy. but now it was hard to keep the cold. we're going fully at full speed with russia as an enemy in the 90s, in the early part of the century. so now it's back and was back before the attack on russia. but now pollutant has fit into that in a way that i think was not unwelcome to our military industry if they didn't actually want it. i'm sure they could even count on russia actually invading another country like to have russia objecting and complaining and posing and threatening to invade, as he did a whole year ago with, with, with troops on the edge of ukraine in belarus. all that was good for business and it doesn't, by the way, is, doesn't justify putin's aggression at all. he's did to have reason to feel in the longer run, threatening to russian security in terms of weapons so close to their borders, like the weapons in cuba. that we objected to. kennedy had no rigid immigration for threatening to adventure, were on that. and russia has had no legitimate recently current rating. craig, but time. nevertheless, we've pursued a policy that was warmed against going back to the mid nineties by 1210, and another c founder of the cold war. and trish, who should issue an indescribable error blunder mistake to make an enemy out of russia by moving especially into ukraine of some of the u. s. as top spies and military generals with ties the defense contractors end up as intelligence analysts on various news channels. when they retire, for example, former c, i a director john brennan became in b, c's, senior national security and intelligence analyst. i see you taking a head count with what you're going to say. and former c i a director michael hayden became a national security analyst for c and n a. how much does this compromise what the public is told about war? what else? what that stake? well, it depends what you think the purpose of the functions that media is in times of war in our military society. their function pretty much is true. so the public on the need from war weapons and the need to intervene in this country are media is ultimately controlled by major corporations like general electric, ah, for a long time. and joe, many other conglomerates basically themselves recognize for consist of big business. and as i say, war is good business for the media and joe, for the administration, even when it's failing, so hoof. so i'm answering your question. it's natural for them to hire these people if their message is to get propaganda out, who better to do it? and he's military or the she a people, if you want, endless war, which in effect, he wish has wanted for her. so then what happens, right, what happens when citizens are only told the truth about war after the wars are over? after government information is leaked after information is declassified, it seems like we only get this under extreme and unforeseeable circumstances and the people were trying to conceal it. so what does it mean for us? well, the kind of information that we needed to blood vietnam was represented by such as the pentagon papers, which was a study of vietnam decision making from 45 to 6768. i put that out 1st starting in 69. and then through the newspapers and 71. so that was somewhat belated, but not too long. but i put on trial for a possible 115 years in prison. so down quite a few people, i didn't see any other bigger. it's like a for 39 years until chelsea manning put out hundreds of thousands of files on his canister. and in iraq. and she just finished 7 and a half years in prison. ed snowden, for his revelations, essential revelations of criminality. why the national security agency? the universal surveillance, not only in our country but around the world, but where it wasn't so illegal, but definitely in some constitution in america. and so essentially a lifetime exile. so these people and daniel haile revealed the drone program. they did what they should have done just as i think i did what i should have done, but everyone has paid a penalty. very heavy penalty nodded my case. nixon actually committed so many crimes which happened amazingly, almost miraculously to become revealed towards the end of my trial that kept me from having to go to prison as he had intended with the others and say either exile or prison. and that just purchase. you mentioned its healthy man and he of course leaked information through wiki leaks and now it looks like we can found drilling a size is being expedited to the united states and weekly published, of course classified information including document. it's both in u. s. war crimes. in iraq and afghanistan and publishers were integral to the information that you liked about the vietnam war. so i'm curious from your perspective, what happens if that president that you spoke to is said that allows governments to dictate what can and can't be published? well, if i may put it this way, it threatens to create a new, as chris is not distinguishable from russia today with julian, a sorry, ah extradited if he hasn't yet been expedited, but it was expedited and prosecuted, convicted here. we will have had the 1st instance of an actual journalist i hadn't been imprisoned for putting out the truth. i was the 1st source, former official to give information like that to join wish and i was put on trial for it. but no journalist is here. we're going put on trout, thanks to our 1st amendment. freedom of the press and treatment speech, which most countries don't have as a law or a good. it will be essentially rescinded if julian sanchez, successfully, prosecutor. and we will then approach the state control of information such as we're seeing in russia today. all of these cases of course, demonstrate the importance of exposing the truth about what's happening when it comes to war in other matters. and of course, your leaking of the pentagon papers is a prime example of that. but today, we have an expansion, arise even of this information and it's hard to decipher what's true, what's not, what's fact, what's fiction? how important is it to have actual transparency when it comes to government actions and government decisions about war? i'm afraid that transparency and war are 2 words don't really go to each other. they don't exist together. in war time, the secrecy that the government carries on all the time about his own crimes and lies in misleading statements in bad predictions. reckless actions that secrecy is certainly legitimize in war because you have to keep it from an enemy. that's one of the senses in which i said at least, are indispensable, especially as, as a long term, once in a, in a cold war, we have to keep things from russians altogether. so you don't, you don't pick transparency. and when people do come out, there's 2 native it, they do get prosecutor, when it's coming out of the sick. part of it, which is very dismaying, is nothing much happens. it may affect public opinion to some extent good public. the thing doesn't try policy or whether a war can be ended or not. i hoped it would. in fact, in my case, nixon was so concerned that i might put out his secrets, which i did have, but i didn't have documents to prove it. but he thought i had documents in to shut me up. he did domestic crimes against an american me, which actually figured far more politically in the millions of other people we were killing in vietnam that a crime against an american counted more. unfortunately, when these things have come out, i have to say not much has changed. so there's a problem with the audience, with the citizenry. you could say with our species. and i actually, i do say that our willingness to support unquestioningly a leader, especially when he or occasionally she can point to when he's threatening their security. and she us to set down public information about it in order to people go along with it pretty well. and when they find out that not too many of our own soldiers are getting killed as in kansas, then they let it go on indefinitely. as chance them was 20 years. ukraine. i think if it, if it devolved down, if the russians came in, war didn't get out, which i don't expect them to, to wish and others will be supporting a guerrilla war, which could be his cost, true to the ukrainians. as the guerrilla war, that the movie dean put up that we supplied against the soviets in afghanistan, that costs a 1000000 and a half afghan lives. and i would hate to see that imposed on the ukrainian people when under any circumstances. i've been through a war like that in vietnam. and i saw what we did to insurgents in the way of bomb cushion several 1000000 lives that has not yet been the price in afghanistan, no matter what, what we're hearing about or crimes which it will could be so and negotiated outcome in which concessions are made on both sides, however, unsatisfactory might look to many people on both sides, could save hundreds of thousands to millions of lives. and i would like to see that happen. i don't think it will, though, i don't think it will. wow. and on that sobering note, i want to thank you for your time, daniel ellsberg. thank you for joining us on a thank you. all right, everybody, that is our show up front. we'll be back with ah and each year european fishing vessels source at least half a 1000000 tons of fish from west africa. this is just to feed livestock in europe and asia. what the going by the gig? what your new, if you do come with me and you'll be doing a serene m by a is a former senegalese fisherman and migrant rights activist in madrid. he runs in the regional elections in spain, aid in seattle, aquarius ne prescott k, no spaces, no fios jenin. it's con faces. grandma sitting on my way in a, a mile. i hear call you. but there was that your mother, if you did some modeling, not merely about the as a newly elected m. p serene confronts policy makers at the heart of the european union with his findings. ah, algeria, with no to ukrainian filmmakers join the army to fight against russian separatists in 2014. they document their journey from civilians to soldiers. as the fighting intensifies the tools of their trade become weapons of war what will be the toll for ukraine's brave hearts witness on al jazeera.