Exactly I'm saying so to
@mb444 from antiquity. Later he left this matter unsolved! But that's alright.
However I also think we should stay neutral unless it's absolute necessity to join any side.
But I hope with new world order we can choose to remain neutral always.
I am not leaving it unresolved. BD obviously needs to stay neutral in terms of action. But that does not mean we do not engage.
Our position should be to engage agressively with both parties and other middle powers. This will prevent us ever explicitly positioning ourselves into a corner.
We need to talk to the quad and participate in maritime exercise. Buy the EFT etc.
At the same time we need to engage with china, pursue belt and road intiative, buy subs and J10 from them.
Simultaneously we need to facilatates economic interaction with japan and korea.
We need to enbrace turkey and buy SAMs and get into JV for ships and drones.
We need to engage GCC and ensure oil and gas keeps flowing and our ppl go there for work and explore if we can bring in investment.
We need to completely work with Russia and continue trading via currency swaps.
We needs to warmly align with EU and increase trade and defense link with france and italy and keep sending workers to relatively newer destination like spain, portugal, poland and romania.
Lastly we need to engage india, increase interconnectivity and trade.
BD does not need to play a zero sum game. We are a maritime trading nation. We need to focus aggresively in economic relationship with all party and pretend to be weak when it comes to defense as we build capacity.
In international scenario every action should be made on a point by point basis rather than following any particular party.
Bottom line we need to balance. Explicit neutrality can no longer suffice... we will give little to everyone based on BDs interest. As we can not satisfy everyone Simultaneously we may need to calibrate to ensure we do not create distance with anyone for any long period.
We need to balance all interest nimbly and pivot often.