This article ignores recent policy developments in the U.S. regarding defense manufacturing and conflates U.S. geopolitical interests with those of Defense Primes. India's perspective on China is also well known in DC.

Is the author ill informed because he's out of the loop?

https://twitter.com/ForeignAffairs/status/1652968112000585729

U.S. supports defense indigenization in India. We presented the logic a year ago. Now, the U.S. can't even supply itself and NATO allies: so, this support has grown....

google.com/amp/s/www.orfo…

A key point I teach in my Latin American Politics class is the Monroe Doctrine wasn't worth the paper it was printed on until the late 1800s.

US did not have the capacity to project power into Latin America until then.

Britain was the big player in the region.
1/3 The Falklands AKA Las Malvinas and Belize then known as British Honduras are remnants of that time.

France attempted to compete: e.g., they invaded Mexico.

The Germans provided military training and investments.

US hegemony goes back to 1918 when UK curtailed involvement.
2/3

Our piece in @WarOnTheRocks argues: India faces a defense equipment related strategic dilemma due to Russia's losses in weapons and platforms in Ukraine.

We make three points about India's short term needs, its long term needs, and Indo-US relations.
1/4
warontherocks.com/2022/04/after-… 1. In the short term, given two hostile neighbors Chin and Pakistan, India will acquire Russian defense equipment from domestic licensed production, continue acquiring high end equipment from Russia, and buy from third country suppliers and upgraders of Russian equipment. 2/4