The Coalition has always argued for, and substantially delivered, defence preparedness to give us maximum protection within the reality constraints we face - population and size. It has set defence spending at around 2.2 per cent of GDP. It has appointed a very strong Defence Minister in Peter Dutton who has taken a broom through the past poorly thought out and implemented acquisition programs. The Coalition maintains close relations with our top allies in the free world. It looks like we are on a sensible track.

Labor broadly matches the Coalition with its policies but, as it is not in government much, we do not know how much is rhetoric and how much will be delivered if they form government. Also, their far left exercises considerable "peacenik" muscle.

The Greens argue for peace, disarmament and demilitarisation. They wish to cut defence spending to 1.5 per cent of GDP. They will close down exports by our defence manufacturing industries.

Given if Labor wins it may well form government with the Greens, or at least be at their beck and call to govern, how can we possibly contemplate Labor or the Greens in these times of international crisis?

One doesn't want to appear cynical but what a boon to the fortunes of some politicians is the Ukrainian crisis.

This applies particularly to Boris Johnson who only recently appeared close to losing his prime ministership and our own PM who is seeking to distract from a long list of political disasters with an election looming.

They now can strut the world stage with largely bipartisan policies condemning President Putin and applying sanctions against Russia.

For our PM this fits in nicely with the claim that a LNP government is better at defence and national security with the "reds under the bed" line. Given missteps with defence procurement of aircraft, submarines, tanks and frigates, one might wonder.

At a time of crisis, the old shibboleth that the LNP is better at economic management will be trotted out again despite a mountain of evidence recently to the contrary.

The daily headlines: "PM issues sanctions". Honestly PM, will a madman like Putin take the least bit of notice? With his obsession for watching footage of the capture and death of Muammar Gaddafi what he is doing is what we westerners should have expected.

Having been through the horrors of a war we lost, I believe it is a waste of effort allowing cowards to murder innocent civilians while we use a diplomatic approach.

Perhaps there are enough Russians who dislike what their soldiers are doing but, given the Russian history, I doubt it. We could try appealing to them, use cyber attacks into their TV and radio.

It is time Australia proved it can be a leader. To hell with NATO and the European Union, we need to send genuine peacekeepers to the Ukraine but with orders to shoot any violent Russians. I wish I could take 30 years off my life.

And for those fellow Australians who disagree, now is the perfect opportunity for China to make its move against Australia. Why not? Right now China and Russian are supplying the Myanmar junta with arms so their military can continue to murder the innocent. Oh what a fool's paradise we Aussies live in.

Under the terms of the Nuremberg trials in 1946 Vladimir Putin is guilty of the first two counts:

As for counts three and four, crimes against humanity and war crimes, we must wait and see.

But surely it is just a matter of time. Putin will turn on the Baltic states next.

Even though they are in NATO, it's unlikely the west will help them.

Vladmir Putin got a deal for $6 million worth of Australian uranium "for peaceful purposes" with John Howard in 2007.

John Howard also oversaw the cuts to our broadcasting service which resulted in the loss of our overseas network, a vanguard of Australian influence and trusted source of reliable information, as well as an asset for regional security post World War II. At one time the Australian point of view was broadcast in 46 countries.

Another missed opportunity was when enlightened Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev pleaded with the western powers for economic help to shore up his regime. This was not sufficiently forthcoming.

A report to Parliament in 2006 on uranium made much of Russia and China's inclusion in the nuclear non proliferation treaty and little of the horrendous consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.

Perhaps Mr Howard was relying on this report.

Probably nobody else is relying much on it on the day invading Russian troops have taken Chernobyl and the day after Mr Putin has threatened "consequences greater than you have ever faced in history".

A half life or no life at all was what our troops faced after their captivity in Japan and many reflected on prime minister Robert Menzies and the 300,000 tons of Australian pig iron sent to Japan during his career and the usefulness of this resource for Japanese bombs and munitions.

"Pig iron Bob" was the nickname given to Sir Robert.

"Should have left it in ground" may be Mr Howard's discreditable moniker.

In their rush to try to blame the west for Mr Putin's invasion of Ukraine, both Colin Samundsett and Pat Cowley-Bacon (Letters, February 25) claimed it's all a result of NATO expansion, but in doing so they chose to ignore the rights of the Ukrainian people.

Apparently, their rights count for nothing if Mr Putin decides that their desire for freedom and independence is a threat to his own security.

Having lived for decades under the yoke of Czarist, Soviet and finally Russian domination, it's hardly surprising Ukraine is seeking its own guarantees of independence.

Membership of NATO was not being forced on Ukraine. It was being requested by the people of Ukraine in order to secure their freedom and future independence. They should have that right, and Putin (and his apologists in the west) should butt out.

I wonder if I'm the only one surprised by the extent of support in the letters page (Letters, February 25) for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I assume you've chosen them as a representative sample.

The tenor of most of those letters sounds eerily similar to the position of the appeasers of Germany in the 1930s: if only we'd promised Russia to not let Ukraine into the NATO defensive alliance, there'd still be peace, and isn't that something worth sacrificing Ukraine's sovereignty for?

But their position assumes that Russia would have been satisfied with such a promise, rather than encouraged to take more.

Russia has spent the better part of the last millennium expanding its borders to the east, to the west, and to the south to buffer itself against what it saw as threats from those regions and beyond.

It seems rather unlikely that it would have been content to accept whatever shameful promises the west was prepared to offer but would have continued to pursue its historical expansionist policy.

With abandon the Ukrainian leadership likens the Russian invasion to Hitler's in 1941. Odd that it should be so opposed to it then, given the joy with which many Ukrainians welcomed in the Nazis. That is a basic fundamental historical fact, not at all unrelated to the events now. That history is being twisted for political purposes by all anti-Russian commentary.

Those comparing the invasion of Ukraine to what happened in the 1930s are only partly right. When Poland was invaded England and France responded with a declaration of war, not sanctions. And, while atomic weapons ended World War II, this time their use has already been threatened.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: