Merkel was trying to mke her past actions sound more noble. The truth is that it was far closer to appeasement. The Minsk agreements were not in good faith not just because Russia repeatedly broke both of them (while pretending not to be a party to them of that the so called republics were not Russian puppets) but also because they also broke earlier agreements to respect Ukraine's independence and borders by invading in 2014.

The story about broken NATO promises was invented as an excuse for the war, the same way Hitler had no shortage of excuses for invading Poland. Many top officials of the USSR were still alive when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. Gorbachev, the minister of foreign affairs Shevardnadze, and the minister of defense Yazov all denied the story. In an interview to German ZDF channel, Gorbachev directly called it a myth: https://x.com/Jesuitchild/status/1749887239226617873 Their successors, like Kozyrev, the first post-USSR minister of foreign affairs of Russian Federation, have also called this story a total fabrication. Gorbachev summed it up with: "Had we had an agreement, we would've written it down."

> At least some NATO members (and Zelenskyy himself) want Ukraine to join NATO to this day. This is hardly lukewarm.

This is exactly what I call lukewarm. Even more than 10 years after Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine has still not received even an official invitation to begin ascension negotiations, let alone reached any key milestones of the process. Despite Ukrainians openly begging for it, NATO membership remains a distant dream.

> They want influence over their neighbor, it is true. Why does the EU want to influence Russia's neighbor?

It doesn't. The initiative for more open trade with the EU comes from Ukraine, because judging by the way rest of Eastern Europe opened up trade with the EU, Ukrainians could expect to see their standard of living rise very sharply in a very short time. In a decade, open trade with the EU could easily double or triple the income for most people in Ukraine. How would you feel about getting paid three times as much for the same job?

> How would you feel about Russia making trade deals with Mexico, sponsoring pro-Russia politicians, and selling advanced military gear to them? How would you feel if Mexico was attacking us with cruise missiles supplied and operated by Russia?

If this was preceded by the US treating Mexico the same way Russia has treated Ukraine, then I'd passionately support the Mexican-Russian alliance. If the US poisoned Mexican politicians, claimed that the Mexican people are a made up ethnicity, demanded Mexico to give up Baja California and Sonora, brainwashed Americans every day with genocidal propaganda directed against Mexicans calling for their extermination, and eventually invaded Mexico, razed entire cities from the earth, killed hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, forced millions of them to become refugees, kidnapped children, stole cultural artifacts, and polluted vast areas of Mexico for centuries with unexploded munitions, could you blame Mexico for seeking closer relations with whoever offers them support in withstanding the onslaught?

Russian treatment of Ukraine is best summed up by this pair of photos: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547

This is Ukraine's president. The photos were taken a few months apart, before and after Russians poisoned him. The US treats Mexico better than this and that's why the Mexican-Russian alliance remains a far-fetched fiction and not anything remotely plausible.

And I encourage you to do so, because if you look at the actual event protocol it simply doesn't support what you're saying.

The bottom line is that whatever was said verbally at the time was understood by all participants to be part of the brainstorming process in the course of negotiations of what would eventually become the 2+4 Agreement. And simply put, this particular proposal did not make it into the agreement. As one notable observer put it: "It was tough, everyone knew that only what is written in black and white in the contract counts."

That's why Gorbachev insists (in an interview you can easily find) that even though he felt that NATO expansion was against the "spirit" of the negotiations, there were no statements about NATO expansion that rose to the level of a "promise". We also have Shevardnadze's equally stringent denial (per the sibling commenter), and strong counterweighing factors, such as Russia's greenlighting of the first round of ascensions (PL, CZ, HU) in the 1997 CFE Treaty, which by itself renders the "broken promise" theory unequivocally moot. And some notable language in the NATO-Russia Founding Act signed in the same year as well.

The war was at least partly instigated by our refusal to promise to keep Ukraine neutral and out of NATO.

That's a severe misreading of the article you cite in association with this statement. Simply put, that's not the language of the article, and that's not an implication it makes.

How would you feel about Russia making trade deals with Mexico, sponsoring pro-Russia politicians,

So far so good. Whatever one may feel about Mexico taking that direction -- it is after all a sovereign state. And while such circumstances would certainly be a matter of concern to the US, the idea that they amount to something in response to which the US would need to launch a full-scale invasion of Mexico (or that such a move could possibly be beneficial the US in any way) would, of course, be seen as batshit insane.

... and selling advanced military gear to them?, ... How would you feel if Mexico was attacking us with cruise missiles supplied and operated by Russia?

If this happened only after the US launched an invasion of Mexico as plainly stupid and unprovoked as Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- all rational observers would agree that Mexico would of course have a perfect right to defend itself -- indeed, "by any means necessary".

Including the procurement of advanced military gear of virtually any conventional description, from whichever source it could find.