The question of closing the Russian military base in Gyumri, Armenia remains outside the current political agenda. This stance was conveyed in an interview with Sergei Kopyrkin, the Russian ambassador to Yerevan, who spoke to RIA News. The ambassador underscored that no official signal from Armenian authorities indicated any plans to withdraw the base, emphasizing that Armenian authorities had publicly stated that the base’s withdrawal is not on the table. In other words, Armenia’s position as stated publicly leaves no room for the base’s closure in the near term, and Moscow appears to be aligned with that assessment. The ambassador also noted that he did not receive any contrary signals from Armenian counterparts and that Moscow has not detected a change in Armenia’s official position on the matter, a line that suggests continuity in the current security arrangement in the region [RIA News].
In related remarks, sources cited by TASS on January 10 reported that Germany had extended financial support to Armenia, aimed at facilitating the withdrawal of Russian border guards from Armenian territory among other measures connected to Russia’s presence in the region. This reported development highlights the broader regional discussions about Russia’s security footprint and the financial and political tools involved in shaping such arrangements. It is important to note that these points emerge from reporting by foreign policy agencies and should be weighed against official statements from the Armenian government and Moscow, which at times offer cautious, non-committal phrasing about potential adjustments in military or border policing arrangements [TASS].
Additionally, the Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly indicated that discussing the status of the base in Armenia is not appropriate in the current diplomatic climate. This stance reinforces the impression that, from Moscow’s perspective, the issue is still governed by careful diplomacy and did not enter formal negotiation channels at the time of the reporting. Observers reading these exchanges can discern a pattern: officials in Moscow prefer to keep the topic outside the public debate while public statements from Yerevan have, at least publicly, affirmed the ongoing presence of Russian troops and the base as part of the security architecture in the region [Foreign Ministry release].
Meanwhile, commentary from the Russian political sphere has touched on potential political and legal constraints that could influence Armenia’s future choices. Some observers in Russia have pointed to legal instruments and international norms as factors that might shape or constrain decisions about foreign bases. In particular, commentary connected to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has been cited in relation to possible limitations on leadership movement within the region. These perspectives illustrate how international legal frameworks are sometimes invoked in discussions about strategic assets and regional security alignments, even as official channels emphasize current stability and continuity of existing arrangements [State Duma discussions].
Overall, the public record at the time reflects a careful, multi-faceted dialogue among involved parties. Armenia’s publicly stated position maintains the base as a continuing factor in national security, while Russia continues to frame the base within established diplomatic boundaries and avoids signaling abrupt changes. The broader conversation, captured by various news agencies, indicates that the footprint of Russian security assets in the South Caucasus remains a live topic within regional power dynamics, with different actors exploring economic, legal, and political instruments to influence outcomes [RIA News; TASS; Foreign Ministry notices; State Duma discussions].