Historic policies don't apply to the current administration. It's really anybody's guess at this point what the US would do if this conflict ratchets up significantly.

> Historically it has tried to be friendly with both

By funding a known miliary dictator (Pervez Musharraf), for decades, helping strengthen the military rule in Pakistan.

So much for "spreading democracy"

"However, Pakistan was a valuable diplomatic partner, and its government helped the United States achieve a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s."

"U.S. prestige was damaged in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime’s actions"

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/south-asia

In context: The Blood Telegram

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...

It was an active decision by the US.

"US isn't interested in picking sides"

but you dont want any of them to ally with russia or chinnese, ignoring problem also "problematic"

> US isn't interested in picking sides. Historically it has tried to be friendly with both

Sure, but one side offers clear benefits over the "ally from hell." (Islamabad, at the very least, has clearly picked a side.)

Nothing about historical US foreign policy can tell us what the current regime wants or will do.

Good. HN is full of posts about stupid crap the US govt has done in the past.

Don't underestimate the stupidity of this administration. History could pale in comparison.

"No the stupid crap of the past" != "smart"

There are countless ways to be stupid and destructive, especially when you're actively trying to destroy your own country's institutions.