Ukraine war: Answering your questions on the conflict's latest developments

It's been 98 days since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine and events on the ground remain complex and fast-moving.

Moscow's forces have been pushed back from the capital city of Kyiv, and the troops dispatched by Vladimir Putin towards the second city of Kharkiv have been forced across the border back into Russia - but intense fighting continues.

Our correspondents on the ground have been answering your questions about how the war is progressing and whether Ukraine can survive the Russian onslaught. They are:

David Perdue, in Washington DC, asks: Has Russia's ground offensive practically stalled? What further Ukrainian territory will Russia look to occupy, if any?

After initial setbacks, Russian troops seem to be making gains in eastern Ukraine. But what's Moscow's objective? If Russia occupies the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, will the Kremlin stop or push on for more territory?

Even if Russia does call a halt, there's no guarantee it would be a permanent cessation of hostilities. They say a leopard doesn't change its spots… neither, I suspect, would Russia's president.

In speeches and articles Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he does not see Ukraine as a sovereign nation; instead he views it as a territory that belongs historically in Moscow's orbit.

After launching his "special military operation", the Kremlin leader seems to have expected the government in Kyiv to fall quickly. He even called on the Ukrainian military to rise up and overthrow the Ukrainian leadership. That didn't happen.

But that doesn't mean Vladimir Putin has given up on the idea of forcing Ukraine back into Moscow's sphere of influence - even in the face of Western sanctions.

This question comes from SC Bhargava: Why is it that Ukraine has been mostly defensive? Why has it not attacked military and civilian targets inside Russia?

This is a war Ukraine did not choose and did not start. It's defensive in its very nature: the country is fighting for its right to exist against an all-out Russian attack.

I don't think you can underestimate what it has cost Ukraine to stop Russia taking Kyiv, and now to try and halt the advance of Russian troops across the Donbas.

Openly and deliberately targeting Russia itself would be a major escalation at a time when Ukraine is battling to hold the line.

The pleas from Kyiv for more weapons from the West are constant. But the US recently made very clear that the longer-range missiles it will provide are not for hitting Russian territory: it fears an escalation.

Remember, the West judged it too risky to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine when Kyiv was begging for that at the start. As for Ukraine targeting Russian civilians? That would be a war crime.

Isobel McRae-Morris asks about reports that some Russian soldiers have been refusing to fight in Ukraine, with some conscripts deserting their positions. Is this really happening?

Yes, although it's hard to know the scale. The thing is, Russia hasn't officially declared war: Vladimir Putin insists on calling his invasion a "special operation" and that means professional soldiers can refuse to take part. They can be fired, but they can't - or shouldn't - be prosecuted.

Still, it takes some guts to actually do it. From my own reporting in Ukraine, I know that many of the Russian soldiers deployed at the start of this invasion were young and inexperienced; some didn't know they were going to war, others thought they'd take Kyiv in days, without resistance.

But the proof of heavy battles and heavy losses is everywhere, including in the refrigerated train carriages I've seen piled up with dead Russian soldiers. So it doesn't surprise me that some would refuse to fight, especially now they've seen for themselves that Ukraine doesn't want "liberating". But we're not seeing reports of mass desertion.

Philip Withers asks: Why has Nato not moved to protect the Black Sea port of Odesa, given that the Black Sea is international waters?

There are lots of complicated reasons for this.

Firstly, Nato is not directly involved in the conflict and wants to keep it that way.

Second, the Montreux Convention, which regulates maritime access to the Black Sea, gives Turkey a say over which non-Black Sea states are allowed to pass in and out through the Bosphorus.

Turkey has much closer relations with Moscow than almost all other Nato members (with the exception of Hungary) and wants to be seen as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Any move to forcibly break Russia's blockade of Odesa would inevitably be seen by Moscow as a hostile move.

Britain and Lithuania recently indicated that they wanted to see a "coalition of the willing" to protect commercial shipping in and out of Odesa, in an effort to allow Ukraine to export its badly needed agricultural products, especially grain, around the world. But plans have yet to take shape.

In the meantime, a Danish decision to supply Ukraine with American-made Harpoon missiles, combined with Ukraine's own Neptune system (which was responsible for sinking the Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet) mean that, for now, Odesa is not likely to be attacked from the sea.

The next question comes from reader Jayesh who asks whether Russia and Ukraine are holding any peace talks at the moment on establishing a ceasefire.

Talks between Russia and Ukraine started up soon after the Russian invasion. There were several rounds of negotiations, but they didn't produce any agreement.

For now, the talking's over. Both sides blame each other for that. But remember: if Russian forces hadn't attacked Ukraine in the first place, there'd be no need for a ceasefire!

It's likely that developments on the battlefield will dictate when, how and in what format negotiations resume.

This week, President Erdogan of Turkey talked by phone with his Ukrainian and Russian counterparts and offered to mediate in the conflict.

Russia's current military aim appears to be to seize and occupy (or "liberate" as the Russians put it) the whole of the Donbas region. Moscow may not be ready for a ceasefire until it manages that.

One reader, Johnny, writes: When are countries going to stop acting scared of Russia and stand up to them?

Are Ukraine's Western backers scared or merely acting cautiously?

Some, like the Baltic republics, have voiced frustration over what they see as the West's reluctance to give Ukraine everything it needs.

But for all Russia's military deficiencies - which have been cruelly exposed over more than three months of a frequently bungled campaign - it is still armed with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons which it has hinted it could use.

Western officials continue to believe that Moscow is unlikely to resort to such doomsday options, but they cannot simply act as if such dangers didn't exist.

This would leave Russia in control of the Crimean peninsula, which it annexed in 2014, as well as significant chunks of the eastern Donbas.

He goes on to ask whether there are any other groups or forces in the country that could remove him.

Considering the highly secretive nature of Kremlin politics, it's only natural that there's lots of rumour and speculation about the man at the top; after all, it's Putin who takes all key decisions in the country.

So… is Vladimir Putin seriously ill? Are the knives being sharpened ahead of a "palace coup"? Are the oligarchs plotting to overthrow the president?

Much of this, I suspect, is wishful thinking on the part of President Putin's detractors. Of course, not everyone in the corridors of Kremlin power will be happy with what Russia's doing in Ukraine and the international sanctions Moscow has brought upon itself.

But, right now, there's no hint of an anti-Putin coup - and that includes amongst the oligarchs, whose wings the Kremlin clipped long ago.

Mind you, if you were Vladimir Putin, would you be taking any chances? That may explain why the head of the Russian National Guard is an ex-Putin bodyguard. According to Russian media reports, so, too, is Russia's new Emergencies Minister, promoted last week.