UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Ms Geller in it asserts among other things:
"The danger is that while Russia possesses thousands of these tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. has only about 100 of them stationed in Europe. The disparity is even more acute in the Indo-Pacific, where China deploys hundreds of nuclear-capable missiles that can strike U.S. bases and
allies in the region, and the United States deploys zero.
Moscow and Beijing may easily interpret this gap in tactical nuclear weapons to suggest the U.S. lacks a credible nuclear deterrent at the lower levels of the escalation ladder.
The sea-launched cruise missile was proposed to address this growing gap. The missile is designed to be carried by attack submarines that could be deployed directly to European or Indo-Pacific waters.
Because it could be deployed close to conflict, rather than on strategic ballistic missile submarines that remain far out at sea, this missile would help remove any Russian or Chinese misperception that the U.S. would not be able to retaliate in kind against a limited nuclear strike.
Forgoing this capability would deprive the U.S. of a critical deterrent to the type of nuclear attack that we are currently worried about in Europe. As Putin threatens Europe and NATO with nuclear weapons, Biden’s decision to axe the program sends a dangerous signal that Putin’s threats are
working, and that the United States is being deterred.
This move also telegraphs weakness to our allies, who rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for their security. Canceling the development of a gap-filling weapon that would be deployed to help protect them may now cause them to question U.S. assurances.
It has been no secret that Biden desires to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. Eliminating this nuclear capability signals his commitment to that goal. But this decision completely ignores the reality of the nuclear threats we are facing today. When it comes to national security,
political promises cannot take priority. In fact, given Russia’s nuclear threats, not to mention China’s massive nuclear expansion, the Administration should be asking what more we need to add to our nuclear arsenal, not what can be cut."

This is quite a different claim than you are making. Further, the evidence and Putin's behavior would suggest her assessment was dead on.

Author Geller's General Bio:
Patty-Jane Geller is a senior policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense.
Before joining Heritage in 2020, Patty-Jane worked at the Senate Armed Services Committee as a Staff Assistant for the Strategic Forces and Cybersecurity Subcommittees, where she worked to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Prior to working at SASC, she worked in the Office of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21).
Geller is also member of the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments 2019 Congressional Defense Seminar and currently a member of the 2020-21 Marshall Fellows Program at the Heritage Foundation.
She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government and a minor degree in physics at Georgetown University, and received a Master of Arts degree in Military Operational Art and Science from the Air Command and Staff College.
Patty-Jane was born and raised in Harrison, New York, and currently lives in Washington, D.C.