Guess that with such a varied membership not all NATO countries will agree on everything and, of course, some are more heavily reliant on Russian supplies of gas/oil than others which will naturally influence their decision making. I wonder if Boris's response would be different if the UK relied on Russia for 40% of its gas? Just saying that it is easier to take the moral high ground for those with less integral links.

Having said that, whilst I still believe that NATO cannot directly become involved (as Ukraine is not a member and this would only escalate the situation) I do totally agree that the West should supply more military aid including suitable aircraft/tanks and more powerful weaponry if Ukrainian forces can operate them. With the failings of the Russian military in this invasion being clear this is a time to take full advantage of any weaknesses before they can regroup and re-organize. This conflict will only get worse as Putin will be desperate to claim some kind of victory.

I still believe that any peace settlement will see parts of eastern Ukraine ceded to Russia but whilst some parts are obviously pro Russian, Putin is after much more and clearly aims for a land bridge to access Crimea through the country's southern regions. Ukraine must be supported more to stop this.

Current news reports of Ukrainian forces shooting wounded or captured soldiers will be made the most of by Putin but, whilst this cannot be condoned, this is what happens in war when one side commits atrocities such as the murder of civilians and rape and the other responds in revenge. But there is still a difference between attacks on military targets and on civilians. The problem is that this situation quickly escalates and the rules of engagement and Geneva convention fall by the wayside.

Can see this dragging on and getting worse with further destruction of Ukraine and increased suffering of civilians so totally agree that the West must do more and Putin stopped. Economic sanctions will bite but are not enough.