An ambassador is the personal - repeat, personal - representative of the head of state of the sending country to the head of state of the receiving country.

Thus the Russian ambassador in Australia, Dr Aleksey Pavlovsky, is President Putin's personal representative to our head of state.

Do we need the personal representative of a war criminal in Canberra right now?

Why hasn't he been declared persona non grata?

Robert Niven and N. Ellis (Letters, March 2) fawn over Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky while he openly tries to push America and NATO into a world war that will get millions of people killed.

Zelensky is calling for a "no fly zone", "fast-tracking EU membership for Ukraine" and morally browbeating the world by "Nazi"-shaming us.

Why? So Ukrainians can have "democracy" (in other words, a US State Department-approved puppet government).

There is no Marvel movie hero in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and that includes Zelensky. The Ukraine-Russia conflict is driven by warmongering politicians and corrupt elites, oligarchs and NGOs exploiting war for their own political, ideological and economic ends.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict comes back to NATO. Former United States congressman Ron Paul is right: "NATO should be disbanded, not expanded."

In the meantime, NATO expansion into eastern Europe should be off the table.

The real agenda that Putin is following with respect to Ukraine was clearly articulated earlier this week in an article by the Russian state-controlled news agency Ria Nostova.

The article states, in short, that Putin is putting right the "tragedy" of 1991 (which I take to mean the collapse of the Soviet Union).

It then goes on to say that he is restoring Russia's greatness by bringing together Russian people "in their entirety", including Belarussians and "little Russians".

The latter is the pejorative term apparently in common use in Russia to refer to Ukrainians.

The article then goes on to state that President Putin has assumed historic responsibility for the solution to the '"Ukrainian question".

There is no mention of the diversionary debate about NATO membership for Ukraine, or whether the West is to blame for the current situation.

It is clear and unequivocal sabre-rattling, straight from the 1930s era of Lebensraum.

His claim is eerily reminiscent of the then common notion that a military solution is needed to accommodate a cultural or national community, and the posturing of the fascist dictators of that time.

Even though there is much justification for Putin's concern that Ukraine may become a member of NATO, his brutal invasion of that state demonstrates that he is a sociopathic madman who really doesn't care what damage he will do to people's lives, including in Russia.

Russia has been turned into a pariah state. Its economy will tank and bankrupt itself over the cost of this war and its rejection by the world. If we were dealing with a tinpot South American dictatorship, or a rational human being with the interests of his fellow citizens at heart, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, in Putin we appear to have a nutter with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

It seems to me that sending arms to the Ukrainians, as Dutton intends, and imposing draconian sanctions and currency restrictions on Russia, will fuel Putin's rage and sense of isolation and make him even more dangerous.

Somehow a diplomatic solution is needed that allows Putin to back down while saving face, and also maintains the integrity of the Ukrainian state.

I don't think Mr Putin is mad, but I do think he is in the early stages of senile dementia. Those of us who sadly know, in hindsight, what to look for will also know that he has probably suspected that himself for some time, and has been covering it up.

But last week on TV the cover slipped a little bit. The people he consults and leaders inside and outside Russia who oppose him would do well to consult with gerontologists and some individuals who have cared for loved ones on the dreadful road to death by senile dementia.

They will be able to give insights about Mr Putin's likely reactions to any actions taken to constrain him. Wise leaders will give the counsel of those people more weight than that of military or political advisers.

I'm all in favour of Australia being hospitable to refugees fleeing murderous conflict in Ukraine, but what will this government do if they arrive by boat?

"We" - i.e. the Coalition government - have a record of not only deciding who comes to Australia, but also how they come, and how long they have to stay in concentration camps before (if ever) their refugee status is acknowledged.

I bet these white, Christian refugees won't have to face the horrors inflicted on those with brownish skins or different religions.

Nicholas Stuart may be right that the conflict in Ukraine was not started by the US ("This is not going how Putin hoped", February 28, p.33), but pushing Russia into a corner has led to a situation in which nuclear war could be the outcome, either by design or by accident.

Putin should withdraw Russian troops immediately and negotiate with President Zelensky. Our hearts go out to the Ukrainian people at this terrible time.

Reports both Putin and Zelensky are willing to discuss neutrality for Ukraine would seem to provide one way out of this crisis. An unthinkable nuclear war must be avoided.

As the Brisbane floods demonstrate, all countries should be focusing on addressing global heating, not increasing the military's huge greenhouse-gas emissions in this dangerous conflict.

Moss Cass, who was Australia's first stand-alone federal environment minister, died on February 26. Within his portfolio, or with other ministers of the Whitlam administration, Moss achieved a lot.

They passed the Australian Heritage Commission Act; the Seas and Submerged Lands Act; the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act; designated the Franklin River as a World Heritage Area; ratified Australia becoming a party to the World Heritage Convention; and undertook much of the policy work leading, under the Fraser government, to the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act.

I was in the first stand-alone environment department, and recall being in Moss's office and brainstorming measures to implement the Whitlam government's environment agenda. Arguably, Moss was our greatest federal environment minister.

Gerard Cockburn reports many payments of Commonwealth money, totalling many millions, are under ANAO and Treasury investigation ("Government ministers potentially breached constitution with payments bungle", canberratimes.com.au, February 23).

There are issues about proper delegation to and authorisation of the public servants who had the payments made. That may be maladministration (and, if assurances were indeed given that authority was held, misconduct). There are issues about appropriation under law: constitutionally, no payment from Commonwealth money may be made other than under an appropriation under law (Australian constitution, s83).

Is it suggested payments covered by an appropriation are nevertheless unconstitutional if there is a problem with the delegation to or authorisation of the public servants who have the payments made? Have payments been made where there was no applicable appropriation?

That would be a real crisis: the executive would be acting without the required authority of the Parliament. We would have a fundamental breach of parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution.

Which is it? The Canberra Times should let us know.

So, the masks come off and days later the COVID-19 cases soar. Who could have seen that one coming, Dominic?

I was puzzled by Michael McCarthy's reference to Greeks conquering the Persian empire (Letters, March 2). Isn't that what Putin says he's afraid of?

Sue Wareham says "context is important" to understand why Putin invaded Ukraine (Letters, March 1). Why did she not mention Putin's revanchism, and that countries that joined NATO chose to do so because they did not wish to be subject to Russia (the way Belarus is), and prefer democracy over authoritarianism?

Dr Sue Wareham (Letters, March 1) appears to miss the point that NATO is a shield, not a sword. It is an anti-aggression pact, not an aggressive military oligarchy. Nobody has ever suggested the NATO members were colluding to invade Russia; just to contain its armed aggression.

Let's hope the only job in Russia more dangerous than Putin's is the one held by his food taster.

If Bonaparte could be exiled to St Helena, surely Putin could be encouraged to become the newest Russian astronaut and sent on a one-way mission to the moon?

I heard the Russian ambassador had been "hauled in" by the Department of Foreign Affairs to explain the Ukraine invasion. Apart from the commercial TV imagery of being "hauled in", I presume there was an equanimous "conversation" with DFAT's officials and everyone can now set about "moving forward"?

Penleigh Boyd (Letters, February 22) asks us to imagine the look on Elon Musk's face if, at the opening of the new Tesla showroom, Barr told him about the 19th-century technology behind Canberra's tram. Considering the first miniature electric cars were demonstrated in the 1830s, and road models were on sale in the 1880s, Elon may well have been delighted.

If we believe our PM when he says that "Australia stands up to bullies", then it's time Australia stands up to him and his LNP mob and turfs them out at the forthcoming election.

I have woken up to calling a spade a spade. Henceforth, for me, "private sector", "private enterprise", etc. become "profit sector". A bit more realistic I think.

It never rains, but it pours. Farewell summer.

Schadenfreude: a word that perfectly describes my feelings on hearing that Clive Palmer has been diagnosed with COVID-19. I imagine I'm not Robinson Crusoe.