Apologies: I wasn't criticising your post: just musing further on Craig Murray's blind spot. This bit's classic:
" That is why the odd election or plebiscite does not mean that somebody is not a dictator. Lukashenko is a dictator, as I have been saying for nigh on twenty years. My analysis is that Lukashenko probably won handily, with over 60% of the vote. But it was by no means a free and fair election. The media is heavily biased (remember you can also say that of the UK), and the weak opposition candidate was only there because, one way or the other, all the important opposition figures are prevented from standing."
By Craig's criterion for Belarus, Boris is a dictator. The Tories won with a "landslide" never seen since the seventies....at only 46% of the vote. On the UK media Craig at least recognises significant similarities, but on "... the weak opposition candidate was only there because, one way or the other, all the important opposition figures are prevented from standing."
Well, not only did the UK allow only a weak opposition candidate in Corbyn but he himself was then thoroughly demonised by BBC state propaganda, by the media and even by his own party: just in case the voters in the UK's very own gerry-rigged FPP voting system threw up a hopeful result for him as it had previously. As with Belarus:"...by no means a free and fair election".
On UK propaganda and fake NGO's when Craig says "I do not have any trouble with any of that. It is part of what diplomacy is." " ...I was a rather good exponent of it on behalf of the UK government for a couple of decades...." its fine apparently because it has "understood boundaries..."
-This smacks me as utter naivety. He appears to think its about making friends by bringing British "democratic" principles and example to other countries: a sort of white mans burden colonial thing, but the only real difference between their "dictatorship" and our "democracy" is the effectiveness of the propaganda machine running the show: Ours, as above, in so good the public actually think they have a democracy although more votes have gone to the opposition in every election since the war than to the erstwhile winners.
As to "understood boundaries" we're talking abut the ultimate US objective being the dissection of the Russian state: there's little doubt that this is the aim- and there simply are no such polite tacit boundaries in such a situation.
Medialens would have him ask himself: "Why Are We the Good Guys?