If you do not understand the difference between neutrality and apathy, say that and I'll happily explain.
The difference is that neutrality, by itself, doesn't describe motivation (which could be apathy, but not necessarily).
As an example, if you apply that logic on countries which were neutral in WWII, that doesn't mean they were pro status quo or pro whatever the outcome was either in theory or practice. It means they have a different interest than the 2 power blocs. And if you look at who was part of Axis, you find Finland, who made a pragmatic and strategic decision due to their (recent) history with Russia.
