‘Sumanta Banerjee on Ukraine War’

Farooque Chowdhury

Mr Sumanta Banerjee in his article “Emerging re-configuration of geopolitical forces” in Frontier (Vol. 55, No. 38, March 19-25, 2023) misses little information, skips a few facts, and creates a bit of confusion.

Mr Banerjee writes: “Russia […] started the war” and “Ukraine is retaliating”.

He misses the chronology and a few confessions. For example, he should check:
[1]  What happened with the Minsk agreements?
[2]  What did the German and French leaders said about those agreements?
[3]  How the Kiev authority dealt with the two regions seeking autonomy at that time?
[4]  For what purpose Ukraine was prepared? And, how was that preparation? And, who prepared this?

Mr Banerjee should check with related information from the MSM–the mainstream media or sources, not from Russian and Chinese sources.

Moreover, Mr Banerjee should check the entire perspective, part of which is NATO–the imperialist war alliance: What was promised during disintegration of the USSR regarding the war alliance–its expansion? Mr Banerjee should check with the information related to the infamous Maidan incident, and imperialism’s role there. And, Mr Banerjee should check with the information related to the Nazis’/neo Nazis’ role in politics in Ukraine.

It’s hoped that Mr Banerjee will not stand for,
[1]   imperialism,
[2]   imperialist war alliance,
[3]   imperialist intervention, and
[4]   Nazis.

With this stand, and with the information, available in the MSM, Mr Banerjee will change his position if he doesn’t like to stand for imperialist geopolitical game.

Mr Banerjee writes: “Refusing to sit […] for negotiation, both are sticking to their respective positions and claims.”

Here also Mr Banerjee misses facts. He should check with the following from the MSM:
[1]  What was the role of BoJo–Borris Johnson of the UK–immediately prior to the halt of the Istanbul negotiation?
[2]  What has been written in the Ukraine constitution?
[3]  What were the statements made by the leaders of (a) Ukraine, (b) EU, and (c) Russia?

It’s hoped that, after checking with the information, Mr Banerjee will rethink his comment cited above.

Mr Banerjee writes: “In September last year, Russia’s Putin issued a threat of nuclear retaliation against pro-Ukraine Western powers.”

Mr Banerjee should check what were the incidents(s) prior to that threat?

It’s hoped that Mr Banerjee [1] will be factual, and [2] understands that such threats don’t come from the blue in Ukraine War-like situation. His check with the information will change his position.

Mr Banerjee deserves thanks for talking about Mr Biden’s open declaration of US’ continued military support to Ukraine.

But Mr Banerjee again misses vital fact: This military support was openly and repeatedly declared months before Mr Biden’s Kiev visit; and that support was implemented: weapons worth billions of dollars have already been supplied to Ukraine by the imperialist NATO camp. There were other military supports including providing training, real time intelligence sharing, surveillance, etc. These all were going on for months, long before February 2022; and these were not secret. So, what Mr Banerjee has told is partial, not the full fact.

Mr Banerjee has missed facts related not only to Ukraine. His list of missing facts is a bit longer, as he writes, “they [the US and Russia] are now using small states as proxies”.

To take out his own confusion Mr Banerjee should try to prepare a list of these small states, which are, as he writes, being used “as proxies”. He will find there are discrepancies in his statement.

Mr Banerjee again fails to be factual, as he writes, “at times”, the Western states “express reservations about the need to continue the war.”

Can he cite a single statement of these states, and of the EU and NATO leaders that talked about their reservations about continuing the war till China proposed a negotiation plan?

Mr Banerjee forms a wrong comparison as he writes: “In contrast, Russia has failed to garner much support from major members of the international community, except China.”

He told about the Western states’ “reservations” about the war; then, he finds “contrast” in Russia’s “failure” to “garner much support from …” Are the two contrasting? Shouldn’t contrast either be between reservation and non-reservation or between failure to have much support and success in having much support? Probably, Mr Banerjee has lost his arguments or facts.

Moreover, Mr Banerjee should again check with the following facts:
[1]  number of countries sanctioning Russia,
[2]  number of countries not joining the sanctions,
[3]  number of countries supplying weapons to Ukraine,
[4]  number of countries not in this weapons-to-Ukraine business.

He may go with [1] the total population of the camp fuelling the Kiev regime, and [2] the total population of the countries not joining the weapons-to-Ukraine camp. He will find this fact in the MSM, and then, calculate it.

He again fails to be factual, as he writes: Russia has gained support from China.

Till now, China has not extended support to Russia in this war.

He again fails to go by facts. Mr Banerjee knows it, but has forgotten to mention that Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea are among the countries that have supported Russia. It will be helpful for him if he checks with the MSM for the facts.

Moreover, he fails to find NATO-imperialist camp’s support to the Kiev regime. He has not noticed that a number of unions in a number of countries are opposing imperialist camp’s ammunitions, etc. shipment to Ukraine. Shall he question himself, his analytical power: Why does the imperialist camp pumping so much money and weapons to the Kiev regime?

Mr Banerjee’s major problem is with definition. He confuses bourgeois democracy. Bourgeois democracy is not democracy. It’s authorita-rianism of the bourgeoisie, of the dominating capital. So, he gets busy with defining authoritarian system in the MS, mainstream, way. It’s an old debate with the MS scholars, and that has been discussed by non-MS theoreticians with a class point of view long ago. So, here, that debate is being skipped. It’s just to mention that [1] none supports authoritarianism, [2] authoritarianism in all forms should be opposed, [3] capital’s authoritarianism shouldn’t be missed.

Mr Banerjee finds China’s “regular sabre rattling against Taiwan.”

Then, is Mr Banerjee standing for Taiwan’s independence, or for the position the Empire has taken? His confusing position is gradually thickening with uncertainty of its destination.

Mr Banerjee again misses perspective, as he writes, “Sino-Russia led alliance” “resemble” “Nazi Germany-Fascist Italy-Imperial Japan axis.” Although he knows history and economy of these states–Russia, China, and Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan–he fails to compare these two groups of states with proper perspectives. Shall he kindly check with the voting pattern in the UN on a proposal on the Nazis? The voting on the proposal was held a few weeks ago.

With so much distance from facts, and with so much confusion, is it possible to have anti-imperialism stand? And, today, is it possible to be a democrat or democracy-lover without having anti-imperialist position? Mr Banerjee knows the answer.


Back to Home Page

Vol 55, No. 42, April 16 - 22, 2023