Between the Bird in the Hand and the Ones in the Bush: Moscow, Washington, and the Future of the Ukrainian Settlement
For Moscow, the security concerns related to Ukraine are of fundamental importance. This explains the divergence in approaches. The White House seeks a swift resolution and aims to bring closure. The Kremlin, however, believes that rushing the process would undermine the prospects of a dependable agreement.
Today, all eyes are on potential developments in the Ukrainian settlement. The level of diplomatic activity is indeed high, and outward signs suggest it may not be without substance. Yet speculating about which of the leaked plans are real and which are not is a futile exercise. What is clear is that Russia is being asked to choose between a bird in the hand and two in the bush. The catch? Key elements necessary for a sustainable agreement are carried in the beaks of all three birds.
Currently, for understandable reasons, everything revolves around territorial issues. This is a particularly sensitive matter—one that falls into the category of the "bird in hand"—because it concerns areas already under Russian control. That bird’s wings, however, are clipped by the reality that legal recognition of these claims appears unrealistic; only informal or tacit understandings are on the table. Nonetheless, dialogue continues, and a scenario involving de facto recognition—paired with a renunciation of efforts to retake the territories by force—remains conceivable. Especially so in a global climate where even formal agreements are no longer treated as immutable.
Yet territory was not the root cause of the broader conflict. The deeper trigger lies in long-standing tensions over regional security. “Demilitarization” was arguably the core demand set forth at the outset of Russia’s military operation. This concept encompasses Ukraine’s neutral status as well as the limitation of its military capabilities—ranging from domestic arms production to foreign arms supplies and existing operational potential.
The central importance of this demand lies in the precedent it would establish—one that overturns the post-Cold War order. For the past 35 years, the NATO community has operated across Europe and Eurasia at its own discretion, often ignoring the objections of other stakeholders. This has formed the basis of an unchallenged expansionist doctrine—one that views Moscow’s concerns as irrelevant and denies it any formal veto power over alliance decisions. The current military campaign, in this light, becomes an assertion of precisely such a veto. A broad demilitarization of Ukraine would represent, in effect, international acknowledgment of this claim. Unsurprisingly, many in the West are unwilling to concede such a precedent.
As the conversation shifts toward territorial concerns, the matter of military security seems to have receded—at least temporarily. Perhaps the Trump-aligned factions in Washington view it as less critical, given their skepticism toward NATO. Or perhaps they believe it is more feasible to push Ukraine toward territorial concessions than to compel Europe to grant Russia a special role in continental security architecture.
Whatever the case, for Moscow, the issue of military security remains non-negotiable. Even significant concessions from Washington—whether in terms of sanctions relief or territorial acknowledgment—will not suffice unless this core concern is addressed. Hence the divergence in pacing and priorities. While the White House seeks a quick resolution and hopes to close the political gestalt, the Kremlin believes haste would only jeopardize the durability of any agreement. That said, Moscow is also reluctant to squander what it sees as a favorable moment, with political alignments across the Atlantic converging in an unusually advantageous way.
How the dialectic between the bird in the hand and the ones in the bush will unfold—we’ll find out soon enough. For the more excitable commentators, however, it is worth bearing three considerations in mind.
First, a single campaign rarely suffices to achieve long-term strategic goals—a fact well demonstrated throughout history. Further phases, military or otherwise, remain entirely possible.
Second, no agreement is eternal. If a deal fails to satisfy the primary stakeholders, it will eventually be disregarded, and the struggle will resume—though not necessarily in military form.
Third, Ukraine is only one piece in a broader global transformation in which Russia intends to play a leading role. These shifts are already underway and will likely grow in scale and complexity. Within this broader context, a certain degree of mutual understanding with the United States remains important.
Notably, the NATO issue itself may eventually be resolved—not due to Russian pressure, but simply as a consequence of the alliance’s increasing anachronism. But for now, that remains in the realm of speculation.