On Saturday, President Trump announced that he would pull the United States out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a key arms control agreement with Russia. Following through on this threat to terminate the agreement that has successfully curtailed the development and use of land-based, intermediate-range missiles would not only fail to advance U.S. interests, but also throw key allies in Europe under the bus.

Trump explained, “Russia has violated the agreement. They’ve been violating it for many years.” He added, “And I don’t know why President Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out. And we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.” As an explanation, “Russia has not, unfortunately, honored the agreement. So we’re going to terminate the agreement. We’re gonna pull out.”

One key element that Trump’s remarks on the agreement miss, however, is the impact of terminating the agreement on U.S. allies in Europe. Although the treaty is between the United States and Russia, the main beneficiaries are European nations who would be under direct threat of the land-based Russian missiles.

This is all the more important because this announcement from the president seems to have involved little consolation of U.S. partners on the other side of the Atlantic and directly contradicts earlier statements from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Just a few weeks ago, Mattis was in Brussels for a meeting with NATO defense ministers when he explained that the U.S. response to Russian violations of INF would involve allies: “This will be a decision obviously made in concert with our allies by the president.”

Trump’s announcement calls that earlier “obvious” statement into question. It seems like Trump failed to consult either Mattis or European leaders on his latest plan for Russia. Not only does that undermine already tenuous U.S. alliances but worryingly signals that Trump underestimates the value of long-time allies.

Originally signed in December 1987 by former President Ronald Reagan and then-USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the treaty bans both countries from nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

Since it was signed, the agreement has significantly cut down the arms stored by both Russia and the U.S. and, most importantly, paved the way for the protection of European allies directly threatened by such missiles.

At issue today is U.S. accusations that Russia no longer complies with these terms. Washington argues that Moscow has violated the terms of the treaty for tests of cruise missiles and, more recently, the new 9M729 Russian missile system. Based on Russian testing and acknowledgment of the program, Moscow does seem willing to flaunt the treaty measures.

Moscow has alleged U.S. violations, saying that particular missiles in Europe are also a threat and out of compliance with the treaty.

These issues, however, are not without the possibility of resolution. Indeed, observers hoped that Trump would have take the opportunity during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to further negotiations on this issue.

Of course, the agreement is not a blanket solution to an arms race with Moscow, nor does it ensure compliance. It also does not address missiles built or deployed by Washington’s rising challenger China.

But that is no reason to pull out of the existing agreement with Russia.

Instead of throwing out a partial solution with no prospect of a new agreement and no plans with allies, Trump would be wise to keep the existing INF Treaty while pressuring Putin to comply with its terms and working on an agreement with Beijing. That prevents further deterioration of alliances with Europe, which are key to countering China, and continues to provide a direct avenue for U.S. pressure on Moscow.

To be sure, Trump voices valid concerns with INF, but scrapping the deal without a plan to address those concerns is no plan at all.