as well by providing free transport options is a festive atmosphere. if the travelers start their long awaited holidays and begin to re unite with their loved ones. jessica washington out to sierra to carter and i colleague piece of american movie history is on the auction block. the blue and white dress warm by judy garland in the 939 film. the wizard of oz hadn't been missing for decades before. it was found only last year. it was discovered in an old shoe box the dress you said to be in good condition apart from a small hole in the back. it could now fetch up to $1200000.00. ah, type picture of the headlines here on al jazeera ukraine says russia has intensified it's offensive in the east. there's been fierce fighting in the don last region. ukraine's president of vladimir zalinski has described the situation there and in the city of khaki as challenging but says his forces are fighting back

. first president in the situation in kirkwood region is difficult, but our troops and our intelligence have important tactical success. the occupiers are doing everything to destroy any life at the dawn. best territory senior constant, cruel bombardment, like we constant russian strikes on infrastructure and residential areas. state that russia wants to make this territory uninhabited to. that's why the defense of our land and our people is literally the fight of our loss of rushes. defense ministry has for the 1st time claimed have used a submarine to launch missiles that ukrainian military targets on thursday. the u. k. is defense ministry warren, that moscow could still reach ukrainian targets from the black sea. that's despite the sinking of its most prestigious worship the moskva earlier this month. a powerful blast has hit her sophie mosque in western cobbled during friday prayers, killing at least 10 people and wounding many others. since these are a minority,

sunny sect to follow a mystical branch of islam is the latest in a series of attacks targeting places of worship and civilians during ramadan. and i so fight are responsible for the beheadings of several hostages has been sentenced to life in prison. in the u. s. london born alexander cody, was part of the circle beetles group. within iso hostages, gave them the nickname because of their british accents. a security guard at an israeli settlement in the occupied westbank has been shot and killed these rainy military. se palestinian gunmen open fire in the aerial settlement. but in ramallah, nobliss then fled or settlements are illegal under international law and an intense heat wave as hit india and pakistan with temperatures hitting record highs for this time of year. parts of india have recorded 45 degrees celsius, causing power cuts and straining health services. new daily reported its 2nd hottest april in 72 years. those were the headlines. the news continues here on our 0 after upfront that you and thanks for watching bye for now. ashley,

tim stories from african perspectives and the marine by the just a business when short documentary from african kilby. i'm going to do this from south africa, ethiopia. and nigeria, we've been robust from stuff in this class. she saw this as my and my role africa direct 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. is war in the region, in many, at the time, believe that they could change how the world viewed war decades later as conflicts rage on and ukraine, yemen in ethiopia, just the name a few. the decision making process behind wars remains as murky. is that 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 that daniel ellsberg. 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 independent raged the 9 nuclear weapons. states collectively been 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 one has kept us from having any real effect on reducing the danger

of nuclear war all these years. and 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 judging 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, british political, strategic aspects of it is not needed. it's dangerous and so forth. but it came very little attention to the role of companies like owing lockheed raytheon, general dynamics. and john d, 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

way climate is talked about pretty much. we just don't face fact and we're 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 creatures shuffling with people around the world. and you talk about the threat of nuclear war in this abyss that we're headed toward. that's 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 got ukraine, you got yemen, you got somalia, you got the ethiopian list, goes on a 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 invasion of ukraine intensifies the stock prices of general dynamics like

he martin, the benefits from war. can you help me unpack that a little bit? who's really benefit 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, i'm president and 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 way keeping it, and 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? and the answer is, who has a listen to learn? those wars were very profitable for the people you named 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 effects 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 role in the european union, but in nato that's in 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 level 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. l. cater lakesha stone 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, oh 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. army were used by libyan in syrian opposition groups. but what happens when those conflicts are over or seemingly over? oh, where did the weapons go? iraq church, it's a long time before these contracts are over. as you know, in afghan, a santa 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 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 cater and then later isis. so he things have low back effects . ah, heaping in mine, he didn't have 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 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 one, 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 with thing? what happens in libby or we, as you've done, we can 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 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 tests of others who don't look like us. ukraine is getting much concern about the casualties in the war crimes because it is not a 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 tow wasn't there 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 higher 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 you could say to some extent, afghanistan, where the weapons fanned out to other people had provided opponents to it 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,

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 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 good enough militarily to serve that 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 ninety's, in the early part of the century. so now it's back and was back before the attack on russia, but now kootenai has fit into that in a way that i think was not unwelcome to our military industry. if they didn't actually wanted, 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 increase in sugar 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 george kenton. over c founder was a cold war. and trish, who should issue an indescribable error blunder. mistake try 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 and 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. as you say, connecticut 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 really is in times of war in our military society. their function pretty much is to show 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 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 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, and he's 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 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 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 in 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 leech like that for 39 years until chelsea manning put out hundreds of thousands of files on his canister. and in iraq. and she spent 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 or 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 discourages you mentioned is healthy man and he of course, leaked information through with you leaks. and now it looks like we can found it feeling a size is being extradited to the united states and weekly, 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, you from a clue this way. it threatens to create a new as chris that is not distinguishable from russia today with julian massage

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, ah, to give information like that to join us and i was put on trial for it. but no journalist has ever been put on trial, thanks to our 1st amendment, freedom of the press and treatment 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 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 legitimized 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 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 opinion doesn't try policy or whether a word 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 into set 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 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 deval down, if the russians came in more didn't get out, which i don't expect them to, to wish and others will be supporting a guerrilla war and a stand that cost a median and a half afghan lives and i would hate to see that imposed on the ukrainian people went under any circumstances i've been sure war like in vietnam. and i saw what we did to insurance in the way a bomb cush shuttle show and negotiated outcome in which concessions are made on both sides. however, unsatisfactory might look to many people on both sides,

could shave hundreds of thousands to 1000000, so 5 and i would like to see that happen. i don't think it will go, i don't think good. well, 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 next with and with his asthma frontline reporting an in depth analysis. we bring you the latest on the ukraine war and the unfolding humanitarian crisis documentary that is fine with me playing well, issues into focus through compelling human stories. the philippines votes in one of ages, biggest elections over 30 out of it's crippling economic crisis may on al jazeera, on counting the cost,

the world's richest man is buying twitter. so what we'll eat on my game one is that a huge build up of death in the world forest countries. we should put the belt and a poll is running low on foreign currency was it is an economic fighting.