Part 1 can be found here.

AlexM116 then claims that a Russian invasion is "impending" - useless alarmism and fear-mongering, and a statement that the Ukrainian defence minister has directly contradicted - but then demonstrates an astonishing lack of self-awareness by saying the situation could escalate "if NATO, which includes the US and the UK, decide to intervene". Would we not also escalate the situation significantly by intervening, just like when the United States sent hundreds of thousands of pounds of lethal weaponry across the Atlantic?

They go on to claim that "we should send the Ukrainians aid", as per the CPA's position - a nice word for "weapons" - but then goes on to essentially write fanfiction about what would happen if the Russians were on the verge of taking Kyiv, claiming "we should send troops to evacuate our embassy staff...if the embassy staff die, it’s our fault".

Now, this obviously conjures images of the recent Afghanistan evacuation, but the situation is not remotely comparable, because Moscow are not the Taliban! Certainly, an active war zone would be a place where we would want to evacuate ambassadors, and it would certainly be a risky environment, but it's not as if there's a risk of Russian forces seizing the embassy and killing our staff. Again, it's just fear-mongering.

AlexM116 says that our intervention would supposedly have an impact because we are not involved with NATO - but if Russia chooses to invade despite American weaponry on their doorstep, why exactly would some Aussie guns stop them? It wouldn't have no impact, sure, but it would be a very small impact. If Russia has their heart set on invasion, we don't have much diplomatic leverage to stop them. What we should do is advocate for peace instead of trying to stop this conflict with guns, by offering to act as mediators and condemning the aggressive actions of both Russia and the USA instead of recklessly intervening one way or the other.

Finally, they end with more fear-mongering, by claiming that Russia won't stop at Ukraine - no, they want to unite the whole former USSR. This is an obviously ridiculous proposition that would necessitate the invasion of many close Russian allies, but apparently that's why it's our "moral duty to help an ally in need".

I will focus on that final sentence. "Moral duty." I've heard a lot of comparisons to 1939 and Poland being invaded, and how we must support the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But these politicians have also been quick to insist that no troops would be sent. Apparently guns will be sufficient - because Ukraine is very important! Just not that important.

Their statements are morally inconsistent. They will talk a big game, but they will only go so far, because they know that deployment would be rightfully unpopular among the Australian people. I believe my position, and the position of the government, is much more consistent. We support peace and freedom, and so we will remain neutral. We will harshly condemn aggressive actions, regardless of who commits them. We will not waste Australian lives on a conflict we have no part in, because we do not believe that the military should be used to fight imperialist wars on the other side of the world.