Until just a couple of years ago, there existed something called a rules-based world order. In that universe, it was widely thought that nuclear weapons were a threat to humanity. Nations were therefore discouraged from possessing or acquiring them. A few major powers already had those dangerous munitions but they were thought to be responsible actors and so were allowed to hold on to theirs.

To stop the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, the nations of that rules-based world adopted the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in June 1968. It came into force in March 1970. The NPT recognized the U.S., China, the Soviet Union, the U.K. and France as the major powers that could safely possess nuclear weapons. It banned all other countries from developing them. Despite that, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have their own nuclear arsenals. They are not signatories to the NPT.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Russia took its place on the UN Security Council. That is how Russia acquired the questionable “major power” label that it deceives itself with today. Ukraine, one of the newly independent nations that had been part of the USSR, had nuclear weapons in its territory. In furtherance of the objectives of the NPT, the U.S. convinced Ukraine’s leaders to relinquish their country’s nuclear arsenal. Ironically, Ukraine was asked to ship the munitions to Russia to be dismantled.

In exchange for the abandonment of their nuclear weapons, and for helping to keep the entire world safe, the U.S., the U.K. and France promised the Ukrainians that they would come to their defense if they were attacked in future. Russia had always been the potential attacker that the Ukrainians were afraid of. But the concerns they expressed to the Clinton administration at the time were dismissed. Russia issued some vague pledges to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and Ukraine was then pressured into signing the Budapest Memorandum, the agreement that formalized the transfer of Ukrainian nukes to Russia.

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 was a clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum. The U.S. and its allies did react to that breach by imposing some sanctions on Russia. But the overall response was quite tepid. That insufficient pushback is what later emboldened Vladimir Putin to launch the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The foolishness that has been on display in Ukraine these past three years would never have started had the country not been forced into giving up its nuclear weapons in 1994. At the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, Ukraine had about 2,000 strategic nuclear warheads, the third-largest arsenal in the world. Russia is said to currently have about 5,580, while the U.S. reportedly has a little over 5,000. For perspective, the U.K. and France are said to have 225 and 290, respectively. Those numbers show what a major nuclear power Ukraine could have been. Putin would not dare touch the country if those missiles were still on Ukrainian soil today.

In the past, some pundits have said that Ukraine was too poor in the 1990s to be able to maintain that nuclear arsenal so it was not wrong to ask for its dismantlement. That is nonsense. North Korea is one of the poorest nations in the world but no one is making that argument about them. Anyone who has closely followed the Ukraine war these past three years would know that the Ukrainians are among the most ingenious people on the planet. Ukraine is also an extremely wealthy country in terms of natural resources. If they had their nuclear weapons, they would have been free of Russian interference, and would most likely be quite prosperous economically today. It is mind-boggling how they have managed to sustain economic activity inside the country under such heavy bombardment.

In her recent interview on BBC World News America, the current Ambassador of the European Union to the U.S., Jovita Neliupšiene, a Lithuanian, spoke about some of the benefits her country has enjoyed from being a NATO member. She said that Lithuania’s GDP has quadrupled since 2004, when it joined the alliance. Freed from Russian domination and interference, the small Baltic nation has been able to devote its full attention to economic development. That is what every Ukrainian today is aspiring to with the fight for NATO and EU memberships.

It was shocking to see President Trump and his vice president publicly berate President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last month. His “sin” was that he had not been sufficiently grateful for the support that the U.S. has provided to Ukraine in the last three years. I wonder whether the president and others in his administration ever factor any of the stipulations of the Budapest Memorandum into their thoughts as they craft their Ukraine policy. They cannot pretend to be unaware of the agreement. They could perhaps argue that the security assurance provided therein wasn’t supposed to mean unlimited U.S. spending. But they cannot hide behind that excuse because we forced the Ukrainians into signing a bad deal.

Zelenskyy and his compatriots have learned hard lessons from acquiescing to that leaky agreement three decades ago. That is why he was insisting on security guarantees during that Oval Office meeting. For that, he was accused of being disrespectful to the president. That is absurd. And let’s face it. We may have given a lot to Ukraine, but much of that assistance has been ineffective. We gave them ammunition to defend themselves but then severely restricted how they could use them, essentially tying their hands behind their backs.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told his followers to show meekness. During the homily, he issued the following command (in Matthew 5:39): “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” This sounds a lot like what many people have been asking the Ukrainians to do over the last three years. But even the Great Teacher himself would have been mad as hell if he had been in Zelenskyy’s shoes in the Oval Office that day.

In the initial weeks after Russia’s invasion, I heard many people in the Global South say that what was happening in Ukraine did not concern them. I was flabbergasted. It was instantly evident that Russia’s aggression had ended the world as we knew it before then. Almost overnight, it became acceptable once again for strong nations to use force to redraw national borders. With that return to medieval times, countries had no choice but to divert precious resources to militarization in order to safeguard their independence.

For poorer countries in particular, the consequences of the Ukraine-Russia war will be extremely dire for a long time. Many of them have habitually relied heavily on foreign aid to survive. But with most of the traditional benefactors now primarily focused on rearming quickly to counter the Russian threat, this assistance will soon dry up. The U.K. drastically slashed its foreign aid budget recently. Germany and the other major European donors already have, or are expected to follow suit.

Stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons was supposed to be in the interest of the whole world. But as Ukrainians have painfully learned, their country made a huge sacrifice and their reward is naked aggression against it by a bully. Even more galling, a large part of the global population watches on and shrugs its shoulders.

That attitude of indifference has all but ended cooperation on some of today’s most critical issues, such as the fight against global warming. There was a lot of talk in recent years about rich countries contributing funds to help poorer nations mitigate the effects of climate change. That collaboration is practically over. Today, if you inhabit an island nation being threatened by rising sea levels, or a country constantly suffering from severe droughts that make farming impossible, all indications are that you are going to be on your own.

The trillions of dollars that countries like Germany, the U.K. and others in Europe will be spending over the next several decades to rearm themselves could have been far better spent on pressing human needs. Education and healthcare for the indigent around the world are urgent issues begging for attention and money. Building infrastructure in poor countries is another. Estonia, the small Baltic nation that is one of the countries at greatest risk of Russian aggression because it shares a border with the bully, has just announced that it will spend 5 percent of its GDP on defense. What a shame.

Thinking about the incalculable harm that the Budapest Memorandum has inflicted on Ukraine, and the way in which it has fundamentally changed the world for the worse, I consider it to be one of the worst agreements ever signed in history. It was a terrible idea and should never have been dreamed of. The damage it has done to America’s credibility on the global stage is also likely to be permanent. Present and future generations, not only in Ukraine but here in America and places around the globe, will endure the effects of this tragedy for a long time.