What is the logic behind this?
They feel threatened by China and not by Russia. Only one is perceived as real competition for the most powerful nation. Simple as that.
They recognize Russia is great power though, which is why strategically they think it’s really dumb and self-destructive to oppose Russia in a way that puts them completely aligned with China as we’re seeing with Ukraine war reaction from the US when Ukraine is not a strategically important country like say, Taiwan is. They see as misdirected warfare, not because of “we’re anti-war” narrative bullsh**t.
Republicans tend to be smarter and more cutthroat. They don’t care about morality behind stuff, more about their country interests as a priority.
The decline of neoconservatism is itself a reversion to the norm for the traditional foreign policy view on the right, among conservatives.
This also means to a return to the more traditional divide where Democrats and Liberals are taking the lead in terms of foreign policy in the name of human rights (think say Jimmy Carter's approach, or Wilson's fourteen points), while Republicans are expressing skepticism of such as being too idealistic or counter to national interests
Meanwhile Republicans will be taking the lead in terms of foreign policy actions on the basis of "national interest uber alles", while Democrats deplore the immorality of it (think Kissinger or Reagan's support for various dictators/the contras).
This is not a spectrum defined by anti-war versus pro-war, its a divide between "realism" and "idealism". This means that both can and indeed will support a war, when it aligns with their foreign policy interests. Likewise, both will be perfectly capable of opposing a war that is fought for the wrong reasons. Its neither inconsistent, nor incoherent, once you look beyond the surface level and dispense with Vietnam era/Baby Boomer conceptualizations of foreign policy.
