Purchasing Russian missiles have risks of inviting US sanctions.

Since India is officially a US ally, Why is India purchasing S-400 rather than the US-made missiles (Patriot or David's Sling or THAAD)?

If tech-transfer was the issue, S-400 doesn't come with a tech-transfer. Patriot and THAAD may also deny tech-transfer. In that case, Israel's David's Sling might have been a better option.

P.S. My personal opinion is, India was probably trying to (1) avoid lengthy negotiation, (2) engage Russia with defense deals so that they don't lean or sell arms to Pakistan.

  • 1
    India is not in NATO and uses a lot more Soviet or newer Russian equipment. The US may or may not want or afford to sanction a larger country located elsewhere, i.e. closer to China. Supposedly even the Saudis are making a deal on the S-400. Dec 18, 2020 at 12:38
  • It seems the US has filp-flopped or was unsure whether to sanction India or not for that. foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/29/… Or more accurately said, there were conflicting views on that in the US circles of power. Calculations may again be different under a new US administration, etc. Dec 18, 2020 at 12:45
  • 2
    A wild guess: they're cheaper or better. Dec 18, 2020 at 16:47
  • 1
    @user253751, so, what is the problem with Turkey buying a 'better and cheaper' missile and India is not?
    – user366312
    Dec 18, 2020 at 17:26
  • 1
    @SwiftPushkar, a false assumption. S-400 doesn't come with a tech-transfer, Israel's David's Sling does.
    – user366312
    Dec 20, 2020 at 18:51


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .