a one time payment of $720000000.00, or an annual payout if it's ah, this is al jazeera, these, your top stories. russian forces have launched missiles as facies across he crane, including the capital cave. 14 people died and 60 were injured in the city of to me pray where rockets destroyed to residential buildings. rescue workers are searching for survivors. natasha butler has moved from keith athena, a number of russian attacks in different parts of the country. they're all ongoing air raid alert systems also in most of southern ukraine. here in keith though it is a bit more quiet. we certainly though, had a different picture this morning. we heard needy 5 very distinct explosions that we later found out were strikes at key infrastructure in the city, according to local authorities. u. k, as announced that will supply tanks and artillery systems to ukraine. it follows a phone call between the british prime minister richie soon i am the ukranian president, log me zalinski on saturday. the hardware will include british army challenger 2 tanks, which is seen as crucial to recapturing occupied territory. the head of the world health organization has welcome china's public release of data on coven, 19 related deaths. it says it must continue. beijing now says nearly 60000 people have died in hospital since any december. thousands of tennesseans have rallied in the capital tunis, calling for the resignation of president case said a demonstration marked 12 years since tennessee in protesters small to arms spring uprisings around the region. large crowds have demonstrated in tel aviv against plans by the new israeli government overhauled the judicial system. they say the puzzles by the prime minister far right administration could weaken that supreme court. whitehouse lawyer says another badge of classified documents have been found at the private residence of u. s. president joe biden. richard, so burst as white house will cooperate with the special council appointed to investigate as he had lines up front is next. in america is a region of wonder, i'm joy tragedy, and yes of violet. but it doesn't matter where you are. you have to be able to relate to the human condition with no country. it's a life and it's my job to shed light on how and why. in 1971, a military analyst by the name of daniel ellsberg, leaked to the press a 7000 page top secret pentagon study and 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. as war in the region, and many at the time believed they could 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 murky is. what we do know is that billions of dollars are spent on weapons and defense contracts every year, making conflict incredibly profitable for so the who benefits from war. and who are the biggest players behind the war machine and up front special with 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 2020 is 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, routed war all these years. that 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 it 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 just the as 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. and 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 preach, 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 asian of ukraine intensifies the stock prices of general dynamics lockheed martin. as you mentioned, northrop grumman raytheon. 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 are going all the way back when you can name? let's just go in 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 afghanistan. right? now the war that we're supporting in yemen through arms to saudi review, a keeping it actually genocidal war going on, or 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 a listen to learn? those wars were very profitable for the people you name for lockheed raytheon knows we're coming 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. in 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 higher us role in europe who are not after all, a european nation. and we has 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 noble enemy that if 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 l. cater. ah, nature stonecutters as rationale for multi 1000000000 now dollar arms budget. only russia has the targets, any sophisticated arms to fight against. you don't need advanced 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 it 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 loved 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 a fantasy and 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 and 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 kato and then later isis. so he, things have blow back to fix. ah, heaping in mine, he didn't, he's hunch industries that 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 attract 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 new tires 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. i want to know this is somewhat at this stage, foreseeable, right? i mean after thing, what happens in syria would thing, what happens in libby or we, as you've done, we can go back decades 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 in 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 are 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 here, 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, inter that creates a public pressure that tom 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 they provide 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 see, the winning is over tree with when you say the libby is, is the prime example. i where and could, to some extent, afghanistan, where the weapons fanned out to other people had 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 so 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 center for disease control, 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 fits 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 bunch of 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 billed 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 parts 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, but 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, it doesn't justify putin's aggression at all. he's did to have reason to feel in the longer run threatened russian security in terms of weapons so close to their borders, like the weapons in cuba that we objected to. kennedy had no rigid increasing trigger threatening to adventure on that. and russia has had no legitimate recently for grading craig, but time. nevertheless, we've pursued a policy that was warmed against, going back to the mid ninety's by 1210 another c founder of the cold war. and trish, who should issue an indescribable error blunder mistake or 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 embassies senior national security and intelligence analysts. i see you shaking your head account 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 functions that really is in times of war, in our military society. their function pretty much is to sell the public on the need for more 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 jo, many other conglomerates basically. and michelle's recognition consists of big business, and as i say, laurie's good business for the media and joe, for the administration, even when it's failing. so hoof sure. 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, then the military or the she a people, if you want, endless war, which in effect, the wish has wanted. so this, so then what happens, right? what happens when citizens are only told the truth about war after the wars are over, after the information is leaked after information is the classified. it seems like we only get this under extreme and unforeseeable circumstances and the people were trying to conceal it. so what does that mean for? well, the kinds 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 big reach like that of for 39 years until chelsea manning put out hundreds of thousands of files on his canister and in iraq. and she was 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 against a constitution in america. and so essentially a lifetime exile. so these people and daniel hale 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 chase 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 chelsea manning, he of course, leaked information through with you leaks and now it looks like we can found billing a size is being expedited to the united states and wiggling published, of course classified information including document exposing us 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 that is not distinguishable from luscious to day 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 in prison for putting out the truth . i was the 1st source, former official to give a information like that to jeff was and i was put on trial for, but no journalist is here. we're going put on trout. thanks to our 1st amendment. freedom of the press and present speech, which most countries don't have as the law or a, it will be essentially rescinded if julian sanchez, successfully prosecuted. 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 to day 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 governm