Perhaps a Kamala Harris presidency would be effective in constraining Vladimir Putin. But the evidence thus far suggests the opposite. That's because the California senator is wrong on a critical issue related to U.S. national security against Russia.

Harris opposes low-yield nuclear weapons, which are of rapidly increasing importance in deterring Russian aggression. More on that in a moment.

I bring up this concern in light of Russian propaganda's favorable coverage of Hawaiian Sen. Tulsi Gabbard's attacks on Harris last night. Harris supporters say the propaganda is proof that Moscow fears a Harris presidency. Former Obama administration official Richard Stengel, for example, suggested that RT's report "is a clear example of Russian disinformation happening in real time. A hashtag created and promoted by Russia Today against Kamala Harris and supporting Rep. Gabbard, who is an apologist for another Putin puppet, Bashar Assad. This is a sign that Harris is seen as a threat."

But is that really true? Does Moscow truly see Harris as a threat? Or is it just that Moscow would pick Gabbard over anyone other than Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders?

Put your money on the latter.

As for Harris, the Kremlin won't view her as any special threat. And that brings us back to the low-yield nuclear weapons. Those weapons will soon become a cornerstone of deterrence against Russian aggression. Just consider what's happening this Friday, when the United States will formally withdraw from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty. That decision follows Russia's deployment of missile forces that are in explicit breach of the INF treaty. But a related concern here is Russia's strategic deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons.

Moscow says that in the event of war, it might use these weapons in a battlefield role. This threat fits seamlessly with Putin's overarching strategy for a European continental war: employing overwhelming force to rapidly seize limited areas of NATO territory (such as the Baltics), then consolidate and defend those areas. This, Putin hopes, would allow him to split NATO between the U.S., Britain, France, and Poland, and other NATO states such as Belgium and Germany who would accept a Russia-favorable cease fire.

This is Putin's strategy, and its nuclear component demands our response. So how should we respond to such a threat?

Well, there are only two options. First, we can do what the Trump administration is currently doing — develop low-yield nuclear weapons in deterrent readiness against Russian low-yield nuclear forces. Alternatively, we could make an explicit threat to use conventional U.S. nuclear counter-force in the event Russia employs any low-yield nuclear weapons.

This returns us to Sen. Harris, who, in voting against the 2018 defense budget, offered explicit reasoning that Putin is going to love: "I cannot support the Administration’s request for new, unchecked powers to develop and administer a low-yield nuclear weapons program," Harris said. "[T]he development of these weapons will make us less safe by increasing the likelihood of a nuclear escalation."

Nor has Harris explicitly stated that she would use conventional nuclear forces against a Russian use of low-yield nukes.

Not only do Harris' words show she doesn't understand the effect of low-yield weapons' deployment (they make us safer by focusing Russian vision on our capability and ready intent), her vote formalizes a weakness against Russian aggression that goes beyond any discomfort people might have about President Trump.

Of course, Harris might change her position. If so, we can reassess. But until then, the facts speak for themselves: Vladimir Putin is not afraid of a Harris presidency.