In modern Russian legal doctrine, two approaches have emerged to define the interdependence of performances in bilateral divisible obligations: the first approach is based on the synallagmatic connection of individual obligations, while the second focuses on cumulative obligations. This divergence has led to legal uncertainty regarding the consequences of such interdependence. The article argues that these approaches do not exclude each other and that each has its own sphere of application. The author demonstrates, however, that the advantages attributed to the second approach, borrowed from foreign legal systems, contradict Russian legislation. Moreover, establishing a unified synallagma does not fully protect the creditor’s interest in receiving complete performance from joint debtors without the necessity of making payments to any of them until full satisfaction is achieved. In this context, alternative contractual mechanisms are explored that can nonetheless safeguard the creditor’s interest. These mechanisms include establishing the indivisibility of the debtors’ obligation or the creditor’s reciprocal obligation; introducing joint and several liability for the debtors or indivisibility of the creditor’s obligation; stipulating a special payment term for the creditor’s obligation; or granting the creditor the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement.