film between the revolutions which is also showing at the belly, not drawing on all kinds of the situation in iran, but also in romania, which source own revolution. 10 years later, we view life as women at the time did in both countries. fast forward 44 years, and it's this festival in the german capital with several prominent iranian women. if he making their case to senior on are fighting with their, their weapon. ours is a with go and i know that the prison, they get free and they can be really until that happens. these women say that fight will go on dominant cane al jazeera berlin. ah, what you all do there? lisa who run the reminder of our top stories. voting is underway. what's being described as nigeria, my son, predictable presidential and parliamentary elections in decades. more than 93000000

people are registered to vote for a new president as well as members of the national assembly. the death toll from devastating earthquakes into kit and syria has not passed. 50000 rescues in northern syria continued to dig through the rubble of buildings destroyed more than 2 weeks ago. ukraine's president says that he would like to meet china's leader to discuss a peace plan being tabled by beijing. it calls for an end to western sanctions, or moscow. ukraine is asking china not to supply weapons to russia. plan is upset up. first of all, i planned to meet changing ping and believe this will be beneficial for countries and for security in the world. we have a large trade turnover with china. the issue is not only the war, the issue that we are states that are interested in maintaining economic relations . i really want to believe that china will not supply weapons to russia. this is very important to me. this is a priority because i'm tennis. he was holding several of the most prominent opposition, politicians in pre trial detention garcia. she is the latest opponent of president,

i say, to be detained. several government critics have been arrested in the past month. president said, does all parliament in 2021 elections in december boycotted by the opposition to the key side of a paragraph? at least 3 people have died as a major wind to storm rages across the united states. more than 2 meters of snow is forecast. the parts of california. los angeles got his 1st blizzard warning in 30 years. the death toll from recent floods and landslides, in southeast and brazil is now written term lease $54.00 and more bad weather is forecast. rescuers of searching for dozens of people missing in some parlor state tropical cycling. freddy has dumped what is being called dangerous amounts of rain are made some big. that's widespread flooding since it made land full on friday. hundreds of thousands of people had prepared for strong winds and possible landslides, the store value devastate to the island of madagascar, the spacing thousands in killing at least 7 people. those were the headlines

upfront his next to stay with us, announces era. on county, the cost one year after russia invaded ukraine off sanctions against moscow worth it. bakers. as far as senegal feel the pinch of the fight in ukraine. how they coping plus air india, a seal. the biggest aviation deal in the industry, history. counting the cost 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 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 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 was spent on weapons and defense contracts every year, making conflict incredibly profitable result. so 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 weapon 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 loopy war all

these years. i'm over was quite effective in helping stock a above ground testing and even the underground testing eventually. 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. the effect that had on congress they reacted to so it was just a question, what people want, which, which 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 allowing lockheed gracie on general dynamics and job b 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 fish 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 creech, we shuffling with people around the world in talk about the threat of nuclear war in this abyss that we're headed toward. and that's certainly a piece of another piece of it. is war in armed conflict. it'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 lockheed martin. as you mentioned, northrop grumman, arethia,

and they recently hit their 5 year hive. so as we talk about war, we also have separate 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, 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 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 higher u. s. 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 natal pretty much. and nato gives us an excuse to 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 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 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 amg that northrop grumman is making a whole new life she be up against ian or isis or i l. cater ah, nature, stone cutters. as rationale for multibillion now dollar arms bunker, only russia has to 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, who now in the last 2 months has just been a bonanza for the armed people. because at last you've made a russia look, an offensive, ah 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 did the weapons go?

it didn't go 1st. 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, sold them to other insurgencies and terrorist groups and others throughout africa and elsewhere. and of course, our efforts in afghanistan, armed in effect against the soviets isis. or i should say al cater and then later isis. so he things have low back effects. ah, heaping in mine. he didn't have these hampshire industries. i wish it would be wrong to say they didn't invade ukraine cook and 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 trust. 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 the 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, political good, but i want to nick, 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 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? and ultimately, what happens to these weapons, what kind of considerations given to what happens to these weapon? well, it comes and who the we is that we're talking about. it's not just,

it's not essentially the taxpayers of the citizens who are, by the way, regrettably willing to see the deaths of others who don't look like us. ukraine is getting much more concerned 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 them in such anguish. and terror that creates a public pressure that i wasn't here before. but in all these other cases, as i said, 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 a 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 sit to some extent afghanistan, where the weapons fanned out to other people. it provided opponents to an adversaries. but is that bad? multiple adversaries are also good for the military industrial complex, not only in our country in europe as well. it's not only american so, 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 individual policies that he had 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 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 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, 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 rigid increasing trigger threatening to adventure on that. and russia has had no legitimate recently for invading crank 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 themselves recognize her consist 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 hook, so i'm answering your question. it's natural for them to hire these people. if

they're 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 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 in 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 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 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 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 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 information like that to john 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 a law or a lawyer. 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 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 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 get transparency. and when people do come out, there's 2 native, if 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 component. the thing doesn't drive 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 shut me up. he did domestic crimes against an american me, which actually figured far more politically than 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 somebody threatening 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 to any of our own soldiers are getting killed as in kansas, then they let it go on indefinitely. as french 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 costly 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 war like that in vietnam. and i saw what we did to insurgents in the way a bomb cushion several 1000000 lives that has not yet been the price in afghanistan, no matter 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 go, 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 lou, a, a, with

wherever you go in the world. one airline goes to make it for you. exceptional katara lawyers going places pick up how do state control information multiple is one of the tools they have the case in the world? it has an incredible faithful recognition technology. how did the narrative improve public opinion better? no walk. how is it in journalism leaf, bringing the story, the video spread like wildfire, they do not do practice or any grade. the listening post dissects the media. we don't cover the news. we cover the way the news is cover. joined the debate. we know that the regime is empowered by the government and by the government today,

they are the government africans how security is also global health care receipt on an online at your voice. there is no right to defense. there is no right to protest . we can't just keep relying on aid, there has to be some work towards a sustainable economy. at the end of the day, it is ordinary objects that are paying the price. this tree analogy is there a ah, are there on the cloud? this isn't news our life coming up in the next 60 minutes. mary is still in line to call services nigeria that the most unpredictable presidential polls in decades. i'll correspondence are in lagos, said new, and.