Current scholarship recognizes that a wide range of disparate policies can be seen as alternatives to balancing against a threatening adversary. Walt usefully distinguishes bandwagoning proper (“aligning with the strongest or most threatening state, thereby rendering it more powerful but also more benign”) from capitulation (“backing down in a confrontation”). Glenn Snyder notes that states confronting an aggressor have two additional options that could well be mistaken for bandwagoning: adopting a neutral posture, or taking steps “to conciliate or compromise with the threatening state” while remaining fundamentally opposed to the adversary’s actions. Eric Labs points to yet another non-confrontational policy that states might pursue toward an aggressor: aligning with other states that are actively resisting the aggressor, but taking no part in the resistance and thereby free-riding on their efforts to preserve the existing order.