All of this is not very Republican. Rationalising non-intervention or, even more remarkable, non-resistance against Russian territorial expansion would not be something Reagan would have agreed with: look what Reagan did in relation to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in fighting a proxy war through Afghan insurgents.
Non-intervention, or George Washington's wisdom to "avoid foreign entanglements" is the CORE of abiding the U.S. Constitution and avoiding unnecessary wars that are not vital to U.S. national security.
When a bomb went off in Beirut and killed 243 U.S. marines, Reagan did not escalate and fight a war there. He recognized that U.S. troops had no business being there in the first place, and did not unnecessarily risk even more U.S. lives.
The 1980-1989 proxy war you cited in Afghanistan is another example of not involving the U.S. military unnecessarily in another war. The U.S. only supplied weapons to the Afghans so they could help themselves, no direct U.S. involvement.
Reagan was and is portrayed as a warmonger, but unlike any of his predecessors or successors, Democrat or Republican, Reagan had the least military action of any president in the last 70 years. A brief police action in Grenada, and a bombing raid in 1986 on Libya after a nightclub bombing in Italy that killed Americans, to deter Libya from any future terrorist sponsorship. And it worked too, Khadaffi backed way off and never threatened the U.S. again. Both shows of military force, but without commitment to any large scale or sustained war.
As I've argued before, the Democrats are actually the party that is more prone to war. World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Liberia, Libya, are all wars initiated by Democrat presidents.
