I read the news today, oh boy

Ukrainian soldiers move a US-supplied M777 howitzer into position to fire at Russian positions in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region. © AP / Efrem Lukatsky

This story on RT:

Glenn Diesen: As propaganda about a Ukrainian ‘victory’ retreats, is a split emerging in the West?

opens with some history:

During the Russian Civil War, the journalist Walter Lippman observed the dilemma of propaganda – it had the positive effect of mobilizing the public for conflict, but the negative outcome of obstructing a workable peace agreement.

The British had drummed up public support for intervention in the conflict by reporting on Polish victories, fleeing communists, and the pending collapse of the Bolsheviks. In reality, the opposite was happening. Lippman argued that because the UK public had been promised victory, there was no political appetite for a reaching a diplomatic settlement.

The Russian Civil War? Oh, you mean the Bolshevik Revolution that started during tail end of WW1 and went on for six years. And Walter Lippman - that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. The 'observed' link goes to an archived copy of a study Lippman wrote for the New Republic back in 1920 that looks at the bias in reporting on the Russian Civil War.

Mr. Diesen goes on to compare the propaganda campaign being waged against Russia and how that is going to affect any kind of settlement.

I don't know what those chowder heads in the Biden administration are trying to do. It looks to me like they are funneling money to the defense industry at the expense of everyone else in America in order to destroy Ukraine.