It's intervention in Syria has been a success.

In what exactly? In carpet bombing villages murdering tens of thousands of Syrians under the pretense of killing ISIS? You realize Russia used ISIS to target actual Syrian rebels who were fighting ISIS as well as the Assad regime right?

This indicated the Russians were able to defeat an army better than what the US faced.

Not really. USA stayed out of Syria for the most part and agreed allowed Russia and Iran to take over yet still killed more actual ISIS fighters with airstrikes and the help of YPG ground forces. We Syrians joke that although ISIS had no air support, due to the amount of times Russia targeted ordinary rebels they were basically protected by Assad and Russia.

Ever wondered how come all of the ISIL leaders being droned have been killed by USA? Not to mention Assad's release of imprisoned islamists to infiltrate what started off as a legitimate opposition.

Does this mean the US armies recent "experience" in he middle east might just be smoke and mirrors and largely not very helpful.

I feel like you'd be better off making this argument by criticizing the "success" in Iraq and other interventions like Libya or Afghanistan. Comparing Russia's intervention in Syria to USA in Iraq just doesn't make a lot of sense considering the factors above and that one was to oust the leader and the other was to preserve them.