A senior Russian official has warned that talk of a Russian military base in Armenia is not just misguided, but counterproductive in the current security climate. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Galuzin described such discussions as off the point, emphasizing that they miss the core understanding already reached between Moscow and Yerevan about the role of the base in regional stability. These remarks come as part of a broader frame on how the arrangement contributes to peace and predictability in the South Caucasus [RIA News].
Galuzin explained that the arrangement governing the base’s location is rooted in a bilateral pact signed on March 16, 1995. He described the agreement as reflecting the shared interests of Russia and Armenia, noting that Article 26 specifies a 49-year term for the presence of Russian military personnel. He recalled that this term is automatically extended for an additional five years beyond the initial period, ensuring continuity of operations and presence in the region. The deputy minister highlighted that this ongoing presence has supported peacekeeping efforts and stability not only within Armenia but also across the wider South Caucasus [RIA News].
According to Galuzin, the security framework established by the bilateral accord remains a cornerstone for regional stability and defense coordination. He cautioned that proposals to alter, rethink, or diminish Russia’s military footprint should be viewed as harmful and inappropriate, underscoring Moscow’s belief that the current arrangements serve legitimate security interests for both states and help sustain a predictable security environment in a neighborhood known for volatility [RIA News].
Earlier, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signaled hesitancy about the benefits of keeping Russian bases on Armenian soil. He noted Armenia’s interest in diversifying its partnerships, pointing to some perceived gaps in allied commitments. Pashinyan referenced developments in Nagorno-Karabakh as a turning point that has prompted Armenia to pursue additional defense partnerships and broaden its security ties beyond a single arrangement [RIA News].
There were also remarks suggesting Russia had been paid by Armenia for weapons deliveries but that timely or complete fulfillment had not always been guaranteed. Such statements contributed to discussions about reliability, strategic alignment, and the long-term terms of security cooperation between the two nations. In the current security environment, Armenian leadership has shown a preference for expanding defense partnerships and diversifying its alliance portfolio to bolster Armenia’s security architecture [RIA News].
From Moscow’s vantage point, the base remains a practical instrument for deterrence and crisis management in the region. The ongoing dialogue around the base is framed as pragmatic defense diplomacy rather than a bargaining chip within broader geopolitical contests. Both capitals continue to navigate the delicate balance between strategic interests and regional dynamics, aiming to maintain stability in an area that has experienced recurring tensions and shifting security alignments over the past decades [RIA News].