Just shy of 31 years ago, on the afternoon of December 8, 1987, President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in St. Vladimir’s Hall in the Kremlin.

The treaty required the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to eliminate from their respective arsenals all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of approximately 300 to 3400 miles.

Speaking before reporters and assembled officials and dignitaries on that December afternoon in the Kremlin, President Reagan observed that

For the first time in history, an entire class of US-Soviet nuclear missiles is eliminated. In addition this treaty provides for the most stringent verification in history. And for the first time, inspection teams are actually in residence in our respective countries…. we must not stop here, Mr. General Secretary; there is much more to be done.

But, alas…

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump offhandedly announced that he was withdrawing from the landmark arms-control agreement. This week, US National Security Adviser—and former Fox News fixture—John Bolton, who has long sought such a move, was in Moscow meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin.

In recent years, both the Obama and Trump State Departments have issued reports accusing Russia of noncompliance with the treaty, charges that Russia has denied. For its part, Russia has objected to the placement of missile-defense installations in eastern Europe as violations of the treaty. Perhaps in anticipation of a Russian withdrawal from the INF, successive defense-authorizations acts have, according to The Washington Post, “funded research and development of weapons that, if ever tested, would violate the INF Treaty.”

Trump’s decision to tear up the INF has frequently been chalked up to a supposed strategic decision by the administration to focus on the rising threat posed by China. Neoconservative Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton released a statement that echoed this view: “The Chinese are stockpiling missiles because they’re not bound by [the INF] at all. I’ve long called for the U.S. to consider whether this treaty still serves our national interest.”

Perhaps so. But would not a common sense approach to the looming challenge in Asia be to renegotiate and strengthen the existing treaty by bringing China aboard?

It would be a mistake to discount the role that Russiagate may have played in the unfolding drama. Trump’s hard-line posturing toward the Kremlin looks to be calculated to insulate him from charges of “being soft” on the Russians with two weeks to go before the critical midterm elections.

In that sense, this historic arms-control agreement may, in the light of history, be come to be seen as a casualty of the Russian frenzy that has had Washington in its grip for the past two and a half years.

Now is the time for members of both parties in both houses of Congress—whatever their views of Trump and the Russians—to step up and hold the administration to account for this needless and reckless decision.