not just affecting simple pain killers and antibiotics across the continent. the european medicines agency says currently, 13 key drugs are in short supply to offer fighting off prices and help combat the symptoms of cove it another to. but to help patients who had a heart attack or stroke among the remainder or drugs, the fight leukemia diabetes. and to prevent the rejection of transplants, one of germany's leading oncologists told me why he believes this is happening. the major problem is that most production sites are not close to us, so they're not in europe anymore. what they're like in india and china was a ship or 2. it makes a very complex supply chain, not only and providing the basic product puzzles to getting. so york to get it, the solution was a new and thus souping, comp commission has decided to give incentives for production site in europe. but that takes decades right now, some say the you need to consider building up

a stock of 3 to 4 month supply of most needed medications. so that shortages can be avoided back at the pharmacy and listen back. patients are still getting the treatments they need, but it's clear that stop here and across europe are having to improvise solutions for their customers. dominant cane al jazeera berlin. ah, this is al jazeera and these are the top stories. the death toll from saturdays russian missile attack on an apartment building and denise pro has crime to 30 rescue workers and denise pro are scrambling to look for survivors trapped in the rubble. doesn't believe to be still missing. just as is she in june brush he, i would like to address all those in russia or from russia who have failed to say a few words to condemn this terror. even now, even though they perfectly see and know everything, your cowardly silence your attempt to wait out what is happening,

we'll only end with the same terrorists coming to get you one day. meanwhile, fighting to control the east of ukraine is intensifying. the kremlin says, russian forces have advanced towards the outskirts of the city of buck, mood, a major transport hub in the dani. it's creature the search for those missing after a plane crash and the paul has been called off for the night. at least 60 people on board the yet he airlines flight have been killed. it happened about 200 kilometers west of cat men do. at least 12 people have been killed in a church attack in eastern democratic republic of congo. another $52.00 were wounded, including children. the attack happened in the city of ca, cindy, in north kiva province during a baptism ceremony. a kidney and suspect has been arrest you as president joe biden has declared a major disaster in california, where a succession of storm systems has brought heavy flooding to already water logged regions. around 25000000 people in the us state have been affected by evacuation

orders or flood warnings. california has been pummeled by near record downpours over 3 weeks caused by weather phenomenon called atmospheric rivers. several waterways have burst their banks and at least 19 people have died. those are the headlines. the news continues here on al jazeera after up front. thanks for watching. in depth analysis of the days headlines from around the world, if i write extremely, there is real and need to be tackled as soon as possible informed opinions. why is the see an opposition concerned about this rather small between turkey, anthea lose than really room to a little turkey. this is and so forth. frank assessments, you know, that was a joke about the interim government that it's not inter him, nor does it got inside story on al jazeera in 1971, a military analyst by the name of daniel ellsberg, lead 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, in many at the time believed they could change how the world viewed war decades later as conflicts rage on and ukraine, yemen in ethiopia, just to 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. the who benefits from war. and who are the biggest players behind the war machine. and up front special with 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 20. 20 is pandemic, raged the 9 nuclear weapons states, collectively spit 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? 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 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 way 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 of ukraine intensifies the stock prices of general dynamics lockheed martin. as you've mentioned, northrop grumman, raytheon. they recently hit their 5 year high. 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, latins silken coolly. bono, who benefits are 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, 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 afghanistan. right now, the war that were supporting in yemen through arms to saudi arabia and the u. e. eyes keeping ej a truly 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 lesson to learn? those floors were very profitable for the people you named for lockheed raytheon, northrop grumman and the others are they have anything to learn. i'm afraid that

right now, there's 2 major purposes. it will keep the war, they 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 it higher us, roland 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 formally 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 twos, 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. 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 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 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 did 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 blowback effects. ah,

heaping in mind a didn't, he's hunch, industries that would be wrong to say they didn't invade ukraine. cooking did that . however, they end 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 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 would 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 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 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 share 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 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 see, the winning is over tree with when you say the libby is it 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 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 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 rushes in 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, 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 treatment every russian security in terms of weapons so close to their borders, like the weapons in cuba that we objected to. kennedy had no regiment reason for 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 nineties by 1210. and another c founder was

a 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. i can't wait, what are you 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 which you think the purpose of functions that really is in times of war in our military society. their function pretty much is to sell 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 jo, many other conglomerates basically themselves recognize her consist of big business. and as a 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 messages 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 for her. that's something 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 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 and 71. so that was somewhat belated, but not too long. but i put on trial for a possible 115 years in prison. and 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. 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 wiki leaks and now it looks like we can found it feeling a size is being expedited 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 russians 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 information like that to join wish and i was put on trial

for it. but no journalist is ever been put on trout, thanks to our 1st amendment, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which most countries don't have as a 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 its own crimes and lies in misleading statements in bad predictions. reckless actions that secrecy is suddenly 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 is change. 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 that pretty well. and when they find out it, not too many of our own soldiers are getting killed as in kansas, then they let it go on indefinitely. as friends 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 as cost through to the ukrainians. as the guerrilla war, that the movie dean put up that we supplied against the soviets in afghanistan, that cost 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 war like that in vietnam. and i saw what we did to insurgents in the way of, i'm course, 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, it 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, along

with there are people in the world what all forms of verification it does go away. so we need people fighting against that. we are trying to see if it's a fake of you maybe in syria, but in a different time. they raced a great deal to find out the truth in very complex situations that include major global play as we've been targeted by you cyber attacks from russia. they're all dangers of doing this kind of work. belling cat truth in a post truth world on al jazeera in 2 years, all of them from me and mas, military cool. the balance of power is shifting. as thousands of pro democracy activists joint forces with ethnic minority insurgence forming a united front to take on the military. people empower goes behind the scenes to

reveal growing optimism that the coalition of people's defense forces could transform the country's future. on me and mas frontline on a just ego examining the headlines. how big a breakthrough is this story for all 3 years, unflinching journalism, i can see the part of the tree where 2 of the bullets hits there about my head. high sharing personal stories with a global audience. nature is so much more than an income for shareholders. it's the library of my people. explore an abundance of world class programming on al jazeera ah, to nepal, and.