Russian President Vladimir Putin has been described on Q+A as a narcissist who harbours "absolute vitriol" towards the West.

Those comments came from former general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Sharan Burrow, who shared a stage with Mr Putin in 2012 and met him several times.

Ms Burrow said that even over a decade ago, Mr Putin showed his hand about his feelings towards the West.

"I met Putin a number of times. I would have said there is narcissism there for sure," Ms Burrow told Q+A host Stan Grant.

"The vitriol was visceral with hatred.”

As the panel discussed whether there was a chance for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, Ms Burrow said she believed he would not back down.

It was a view that was echoed by both Ukrainian ambassador to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko, US Senator Sarah McBride and Australia's former high commissioner to the United Kingdom George Brandis.

Asked whether the war could end without one side just backing down, by audience member Jamie Hutchinson, none of the panellists felt that was possible and Ms McBride said she believed the United States would continue to stand behind Ukraine.

"I think in the United States, the people within our country are committed to continuing to support the Ukrainian government in repelling Vladimir Putin's invasion," the Democrat senator said before she went on to attack Mr Putin's propaganda war and his narratives against Ukraine and the West.

Those narratives have included that Ukraine, according to Mr Putin, has an LGBTQ agenda and is full of Neo-Nazis, a claim that was made initially around Ukraine's use of the ultra-right Azov Regiment and has continued to be made without any evidence.

"Vladimir Putin claiming that this is a war to protect Russia is propaganda, plain and simple … the president [Joe Biden] would call it 'malarky,'" Ms McBride said.

"The reality is, if Ukrainian troops give up, that is the end of Ukraine as we know it.

"If Russian troops give up, they just go home.

"We have to reject the repeated propaganda by Putin that there is some sort of existential threat that Russia was facing from NATO or the West.

"That is just not true."

'Only one acceptable outcome'

The US senator for Delaware's comments were echoed by Mr Brandis, who said while the war could end in many ways, only one was acceptable.

"I think there are a number of potential scenarios that one can imagine," Mr Brandis said.

"This [war] is the great threat in our generation to the international rules-based order and also a threat to the peace and stability of Europe.

With it being suggested by a Q+A audience member that the United States has a poor track record when it comes to international intervention of late, examples including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ms McBride said this was different.

Not only have the US or other powers not put troops on the ground or in the air but, she said, the US could ultimately change nothing in Afghanistan, while backing the decision to offer support but not on the ground in Ukraine.

It was a commentary that seemed to cause some concern for Mr Myroshnychenko, who warned Mr Putin might expect the West to stop caring about Ukraine the way they did over time with Afghanistan.

"[In 2014] Putin invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea and occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk," he said.

"The reaction was weak, the sanctions imposed not enough.

"Countries continued trading with Russia, building pipelines to supply gas, and leverage was growing in a way where Putin figured if he could do it and was allowed, he can probably go and invade Ukraine entirely.

"Get it done in three days and everybody is going to accept it.

"What he didn't expect … the future resistance coming from Ukraine and the resilience and unity of the West in helping Ukraine.

"What he's betting on is for you to get tired of that, tired of war, volatility on the commodity markets, surging prices for gas and whatnot."

Ukrainians living in limbo

While the plight of Ukrainians in their home nation is one thing, many have been displaced and for Q+A audience member Oleksandra Lunova, who has been in Australia for 11 months, her future remains uncertain.

She is on a temporary protection visa and wanted to know when her life and the lives of other refugees would stop being lived in limbo and if their families could ever come join them.

"We can't bring here our parents or our partners, a lot of Ukrainians already here are over 45 years old and because of current immigration legislation they have near zero chance to stay here for a long period or permanently," she said.

"How can we plan our life in these circumstances with a temporary humanitarian visa?"

And while Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy sympathised with her situation, he said he could not give a clear answer right now.

"The government will have to make a decision as that timeline approaches about what happens," Mr Conroy said.

"We have a general principle of not sending people back to areas where they can suffer harm."

Pressed further by Grant on the issue, Mr Conroy said he would not make a policy announcement but that the government would "answer that question" in due time.

Asked what he would like to see from the Australian government, Mr Myroshnychenko said he thought Australia could take on more Ukrainian refugees.

"For the time being, we're very grateful for all those countries hosting our people temporarily and within their borders, including Australia," he said.

"But at the same time if we look at the scale of the issue, Poland has 1.5 million Ukrainians, Germany almost a million. Britain is hosting over 100,000 Ukrainians.

"The numbers are huge and the scale of the problem is big."

Watch the full episode of Q+A on iview.