It is 2017 and what David Satter is writing is correct. How can any other conclusion be reaches.

Fascinating!

The Kremlin trolls don't like this. You know it's good!

Considering the developments in the US presently this is illuminating as to the conditions in a post imperial society. Brace yourself America...

What he describing is perfectly consistent with the leftist pattern in many parts of the world, look at Venezuela today. “When might makes right” how else would any other outcome come about?

Our Own socialists may do some of this kind someday, we better be aware of giving them any power at all.

I see putins fans are not happy !! The truth hurts !

I don't think all negative comments are from Russian trolls, some must be from Snowden supporters. Just a couple of minutes into this, and I'm already getting annoyed at the speaker. He hasn't even started saying anything about Russia, just dove straight into trashing Snowden.

I'm not sure it is a criticism, but it after listening to several lectures by Satter, it is clear that he has been repeating the same examples and case details, the same narrative through 3 or more books. His story is compelling and the Putin case is convincing, but when does the narrative become rhetoric?

1992--------2023---Situation in one word-------Deadlock !

They built a wall, just like the USSR did in Berlin . Only in Ukraine 🇺🇦 . It is like they say a Leppard doesn't change its spots.

If you back in history go back in yours to show how it was for the native's treatments of Americans

Right now 1.8%, projected to decline by WTO

God bless America and May she fly above the ignorant forever.

People in the know shold agree that in Russias' and Germanys' case the superior political sphere of English historical know how. Why not repeat Hitlers' path on the line of Napolean?. Russia was easy picking and it was too aparent at the outset. Only then the massive "Land Lease" effort provided the hardware to carry onto victory. After the harrowing win it has become all to apparent that Russias' potential rise to power needs to be curtailed. Did not Lenin said that time of peace is nothing more than fighting war by other means?.

Nothing this speaker says, nor any of the questions asked him, would give you a clue that the Orange Revolution could be anything other than an internal Ukrainian affair, or that Putin may have had other motives than to distract his people. Now, I don't claim any special knowledge about this, but as the speech went on treating this subject became a more and more glaring omission. E.g., here is Jack Matlock, Jr, U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1987 to 1991: "in the Orange Revolution in Kiev, foreigners, including Americans, were very active in organizing people..." www.democracynow.org/2014/3/20/fmr_us_ambassador_behind_crimea_crisis

Many Russian trolls and agents are writing here

I would refer the listener to two books: Marcus Papadopoulos, Arise, Rossiya, and Glenn Diesen, Russian Conservatism, for a corrective of this perspective.

Let’s look at Ukraine’s disgraced former president, the legitimately elected Victor Yanukovych. After he fled to Russia the idea that he remained the legitimate head of state, and therefore the manner in which he was replaced was automatically illegitimate, was commonplace. This line of thinking was heavily promulgated by his new host country for reasons that are self-evident. But was it right, or even logical, to claim this? The legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime indeed began with a fair election, albeit an election in which the Ukrainian people had no good choices. But could that legitimacy go on unquestioned despite the blatant grand scale theft of state resources? No. Of course it could not. Common hooligans and thugs were brought to Kyiv by the Yanukovych authorities (first recorded on Nov. 29, 2013 when the revolution was just a few days old) to terrorize the residents of the capital. This act was completely in contradiction to Article 3 of the constitution that Yanukovych was elected to uphold. It was right to question Yanukovych’s legitimacy after this. Can the legitimacy of a ruling authority survive past the blatantly illegal adoption of laws designed to end democracy and create a dictatorship? No. Of course it cannot. Yet, this is what the Yanukovych controlled Party of Regions attempted to do on Jan. 16, 2014. Later analysis of images taken in parliament that while 235 MPs were declared to have voted for these “dictatorship” laws, only about half of this number of MPs were actually in the session hall when the vote was taken (by a show of hands - also illegal.) After such clearly anti-democratic and dishonest actions, can anyone consider that authority to be legitimate? The actions were a breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s constitution - something that Yanukovych was under oath to protect and uphold. But he failed to keep his word. There were more violations of the constitution by Yanukovych, its supposed protector. Article 27 of Ukraine’s constitution says that “Every person shall have the inalienable right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” Yet Yuri Verbitsky, a 42 year old geologist from Lviv, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by forces belonging to the Yanukovych regime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 25 of 2014. That Yanukovych had already lost any legitimacy by this point should be beyond question. Later, of course, came the deaths of many more people on Jan. 18 and then Jan. 20, after which Yanukovych fled to Russia, insisting his authority and position were still legitimate. Define legitimate. The idea that legitimacy carries on from appointment without further question is a complete fallacy. It is something that we should refuse to accept. An elected leader most certainly can lose their legitimacy through illegal and/or unconstitutional, actions. The most recent public attempt at increasing the fog blurring the distinction between legitimately elected and legitimate comes from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Bottom line, they are not the same, although it is easy to see why Russia’s ruling clan would seek to pretend that they are.

It seems that the author has no mirror to see how the US acts.

I thought 'American Correspondent" is the nick name for 'American Spy'

Bull art

14:50 "...a set of cleptocracies in which a small group of people pillaged the country for their own benefit and to the great detriment of the rest of the population" Sounds like he is describing the USA.

I'm at 15:10 and David has only been whining about being expelled and talking about USSR. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz 35:20 still nothing ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz 47:24 Now he sounds like he ist starting to cry and the fact content is still nothing. He is just repeating what CNN already has said. No original knowledge at all. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz Think I give up, this was pointless.

Satter is great in twisting the facts, nice and exemplary piece of propaganda though! Thumbs up! I am not surprised he got banned from RF.

What is this guy on about? Snowden is a hero.

The man is a professional liar

This guy has the Balls to call Russia Crooked as the US steals Russian Yachts and sells them. Germany seems to have gone Pirate and seized 3 Russian LNG Ships. The US provokes Russia for 8 years with 5 billion bucks worth of weapons, and then Sanctions the Russians when they respond. All this to exploit European Consumers with LNG, at around 3 times the cost of Russian Gas. Hillsdale seems to have some appreciation of crooked behavior, if this guy is an example of your idea of a inspirational speaker?

Another propaganda piece.

Liar, liar pants on fire.