How likely is a nuclear attack on the UK? Could Putin be removed from power? Your questions answered

Your questions were answered by our Moscow correspondent Diana Magnay and international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn, as well as senior analyst Stuart Ray. 

Scroll down to read their answers, which ranged from the threat of a nuclear attack on the UK to why Russia is no longer attempting to take control of Kyiv. 

Thanks to the thousands of you who submitted questions - we'll be back with another Q&A soon. 

Stuart Ray, senior analyst at McKenzie Intelligence:

The Royal Observer Corps, initially charged with identifying enemy aircraft and providing early warning of an attack in both the world wars, adapted to a new role during the Cold War and the threat of a nuclear strike. It was eventually stood down in the mid-90s.  

The concept of the Corps has been surpassed by technology and there is no real role that it could fulfil nowadays, although some of its previous duties are maintained by the RAF reserve - so there is a potential to carry out some of its tasks if required.  

While the central government retains a facility to continue functioning in the event of a nuclear strike against the UK, the threat of such a strike remains negligible and there is no requirement to recommission such shelters for regional seats of government.

Stuart Ray, senior analyst at McKenzie Intelligence:

Three hundred thousand troops sounds a lot - and it is. But when put into context of the situation in Ukraine, the realities of what this partial mobilisation means becomes clear.  

Those eligible for the mobilisation are former conscripts with only rudimentary training, many of whom will be subject to skill fade after having left the service. Very few will have any combat experience and top-up training will be limited.  

It is likely that these troops will be used to backfill units that have been depleted following operations in Ukraine.  

The mobilisation will not address the ineffective command and control issue that has plagued the Russian army and it will still be subjected to inadequate support logistically.  

With all of this in mind, the mobilisation will not achieve anything of substance.

Dominic Waghorn, international affairs editor: 

The boring answer to this is that we live in a parliamentary democracy.  MPs are voted for every five years and entrusted with making decisions they believe are in the best interests of voters and country, even if those decisions would actually be unpopular.  

As the 18th century political thinker Edmund Burke put it: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Referendums are therefore very rare.  But very little polling has been done on Britain's support of Ukraine.  That support is likely to be strained, however, as the cost of living crisis continues to bite.  

As we struggle with soaring bills and shiver in our homes this winter, will we blame Vladimir Putin and want more done to punish him, or hold our government responsible?  

Whether or not the war goes on, European nations are likely to continue reducing their dependency on cheap Russian energy, which means fuel prices are likely to remain high for some time to come.

Stuart Ray, senior analyst at McKenzie Intelligence:

There is no current countermeasure to the hypersonic missile threat, although it is likely that this is a priority for defence research.  

But the threat posed must be put into perspective. Russia is currently unable to mass produce these systems, and this will have been exacerbated by the impact of sanctions against Russia. There will be limited stockpiles of the systems and there are limited means with which to deliver the systems.  

While the capability of the hypersonic missile should not be understated, the real threat they pose to UK infrastructure is very limited.  The likelihood of a strike against the UK is very very low.

Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent: 

Suspicion of the West and of NATO runs deep in Russia, even for those not glued to state TV.  Not many people (in any country)  will lay geopolitical blame at their own door and this is a country of patriots. 

Vladimir Putin has driven the patriotic agenda hard. That said, there is a difference between a latent hostility towards the West and believing that the West is outright seeking the destruction of Russia.  

Middle-aged and older generations, who grew up in the Soviet Union, mostly do believe the West is out to get Russia. The youth, less so. 

Dominic Waghorn, international affairs editor: 

The UN would not ever supply weapons, but NATO has been.  It will carry on doing so regardless of referendums, but they will complicate the situation.  

The West won't recognise their outcome or recognise them as legitimate but they will allow Russia to claim an attack on territory that has "voted" to be annexed by Russia is Russian.  Moscow may then use such an attack as a pretext to escalate its response.  

This is another reason why we may be entering a more dangerous phase in this conflict.

Stuart Ray, senior analyst at McKenzie Intelligence:

In the main part, Russia remains a conscripted army. There were plans to move to a professional status in the early 2000s but it has not really materialised.  

The Russian army has not changed that dramatically from the days of the Soviet Union. There is little room for initiative amongst the junior commanders who are reluctant to make decisions without clearance from higher authority. There is no NCO cadre of any substance and therefore the professionalism and ability to function as a coherent force is limited.  

In addition to these points, Russian equipment is old and outdated - much of it is still of Soviet-era design. It is no match for the modern weapon systems that have been supplied to Ukraine from the West, and the Soviet weapons have performed very badly during this conflict. 

All of these points have contributed to the erosion of morale amongst the Russian troops.

Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent: 

Anti-Western hostility and suspicion of NATO runs deep in Russia, not just amongst older generations but younger ones too - a hangover from Soviet times that has seeped into the national psyche, reinforced of course by endless propaganda.  

People across the country are predisposed to believe that the West is at fault and that Russia is a victim of Western hostility and manipulation, even if they don't spend their time watching state TV. 

Inside the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin's more hawkish advisers like Nikolai Patrushev really do believe the West is out to secure the break-up of Russia and see plots around every corner.  

Mr Putin has been cut from the same KGB cloth and from his repeated, angry rhetoric, I would argue that he does believe his own narrative.  

Amongst the elites, it is a much more mixed picture but even those who don't believe it won't speak out because they know that speaking out is dangerous – also a fear inherited from Soviet times. 

Dominic Waghorn, international affairs editor:

An all-out war between NATO and Russia, both armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, would not be in anyone's interests.  

That is why NATO is not sending troops to help Ukraine. That is unlikely to change. 

Even if Russia uses what is called a tactical nuclear strike - a limited attack with a nuclear weapon - NATO is unlikely to respond with nuclear weapons, it's thought.  

But wars generally do not go to plan and there is always the danger of miscalculation and escalation. Vladimir Putin's recent comments have certainly raised the stakes. That is why many believe we are entering the most dangerous phase of this conflict.