Why Putin and Pashinyan Both Avoid Deciding on Russian Military Base
Armenia is talking a lot about anti-Russian rhetoric, but they're not doing any concrete steps against Russian vital interests. Just talks, no actions.
This is a composite clip that stitches several moments together. The full preview will appear here once the Short has been rendered and published.
During the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, an unusual diplomatic exchange between Putin and Pashinyan played out: Putin stated that if Armenia no longer wants the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri, Russia can leave tomorrow; Pashinyan replied in near-mirror terms, saying the base is no longer a vital interest for Armenia and that Yerevan will not object if Russia leaves. To observers, this appeared surreal-both leaders seemed to be dodging responsibility rather than making a strategic choice.
Geopolitical analyst Suren Sargsyan unpacks the logic behind this apparent avoidance. He notes that while Pashinyan’s government employs strong anti-Russian rhetoric across multiple domains-CSTO membership, the Eurasian Economic Union, and military presence-Armenia has taken no concrete action to challenge Russian strategic interests. The government freezes its CSTO status rather than formally withdrawing; it remains in the Eurasian Union despite calls to exit; and Russian border troops continue to operate on Armenian soil. This gap between rhetoric and action defines the broader Armenia-Russia relationship.
Why avoid a clear decision? Neither leader, Sargsyan says, wants to take responsibility for the base. Pashinyan says Russia can take it if it wants, but never tells Russia to get out; Putin says he will take it out if Armenia does not need it, but never says he is taking it out. Sargsyan later notes that Putin keeps pressing the idea of a referendum on the base, which Pashinyan resists because whatever the people decided, he could not undo it. Elsewhere in the conversation Sargsyan adds that a weakened Russia still prefers to hold even weak positions rather than hand them to someone else. Both leaders, in Sargsyan’s view, are calculating that ambiguity is safer than commitment. For Armenia watchers and students of Russian foreign policy, this moment illuminates how small nations navigate pressure from rival great powers by maintaining strategic opacity rather than making principled stands.
Transcript
Suren Sargsyan: Well, at least I can see that Armenia is talking a lot about Armenian-Russian relations, talking a lot, there is a lot of anti-Russian rhetorics in Armenian politics, including in the governmental circles, including in the Civil Contract political party, but Armenia is not doing any concrete steps against any Russian vital interests, like just talks, no actions.
Suren Sargsyan: And Putin was saying, you know, if you want to leave, you can leave right now. Pashinyan is saying, no, I don't want to leave. I want to stay. The same with the military base. Like, if you don't, what is the position of Putin and what is the position of Pashinyan? They don't want to take responsibility about this military base. Pashinyan is saying, if you want it, you can take it. Putin is saying if you don't need it I will take it but Putin is not saying I know you don't need it I'm taking it out and Pashinyan is not saying just take it out and get out of here I mean this kind of statements are not there so which means that Armenia doesn't want to do any concrete steps against Russian interests in the South Caucasus. I mean, a lot of talks, zero actions.