Imagine six even countries. Two pairs have formed alliances, and these alliances might go to war with each other sometime in the future.
A fifth country is situated geographically in between both alliances and is being invited into both.
It could join either alliance, but the sixth country (which is a bit distant) might consider this a threat. It wouldn't tolerate an imbalance of power, for this would sooner or later lead to the triumph of the superior alliance over the inferior one - and hegemony would follow. Somehow country #6 doesn't think that's a good scenario.
Thus if country #5 enters an alliance, it would soon turn into a 3 vs 3 alliance situation and the next war would be a great, terrible one.
Now if it instead stays neutral and just tells everyone it'll defend itself and ask the non-aggressor alliance for help in the event of an aggression - wouldn't that deter aggression? An aggression would tilt the balance of power against the aggression. That's not encouraging ... for warmongers.
Let's call this the 1900 scenario.
Now let's think about another scenario.
Two huge blocks face each other, and even a small misunderstanding or border firefight could lead to a great war. This time there's no balance of power-obsessed 6th country; it's all about the 5th country. It could tilt the balance of power by joining a bloc, but it could not prevent a spark in the powder keg.
Wouldn't it be safer for everyone - especially the country #5 in between both blocs - if country #5 remains neutral and just defends itself? It could still call the non-aggressor bloc for help in the event of an aggression - and thus throw its weight systematically against aggression - whatever side it originates from.
Let's call this the 1950's scenario.
- - - - -
Both models together form a simple hypothesis*; a tiny building block for a full understanding about how to pursue national security.
The scenarios appear to be plausible to me (not that surprising, after all I authored them). I doubt that there's a decisive logical flaw in them.
These scenarios suggest that neutrality can actually enhance national security and even reduce the probability of war in the region. Neutral countries may be able to influence the balance of power more effectively with their neutrality than they could by joining an alliance.
All this is certainly not entirely new. Ten thousands of people have thought seriously about neutrality strategies before, after all.
It's not the novelty that's interesting, but the distance to mainstream talk. It's probably been years since I heard about neutrality as national security enhancer. Most often, it's understood (by authors) as self-evident that being part of an alliance is the way to go for national security.
* (Science often produces a model / hypothesis to explain a tin facet of the whole. Such models are not comprehensive, but they may depict underlying forces that occasionally become decisive for events.)