I'm gonna try and not shitpost but actually take a stab at analyzing some policy implications here.

1) Assad is staying for the foreseeable future, but Obama's not going to be the one who admits it, and he's keeping options open for his successor. While Obama is POTUS US will not work directly with Assad, neither will it attack him directly. The same mushy position since the infamous "red lines" were crossed is going to attract massive criticism from some quarters, but this far into his presidential career Obama knows that critical words are harmless unlike entering an aimless, losing war. And "Assad must go" crowd must admit that accomplishing that would require NATO bombs+Turkish ground troops+cozying up to groups like Ahrar and if you win your prize is destroyed Syria. That isn't going to happen. Assad can rest secure until the next election, because Obama's leaving the Syria issue to the next person. If it's Trump I'd say very good for Assad but if it's Hillary very bad (she is unreformed neocon).

2) Potshots at Russia totally expected because honestly they're winning and what are we going to do about it? Russian economic "crisis" very overblown, not worse than financial crisis U.S. still hasn't actually recovered from (8 yrs later median household income still down like 4.5k)

OK one shitpost comment too: talk about democracy, human rights, and rule of law is completely hollow while the U.S. sits with the Saudi Kingdom. Maybe we could throttle back on the failed decades of democracy promotion via arms-sales and focus on improving America's democracy. Gerrymandering of house Districts is like England pre-1832-- for the Democrats to take the House they'd need like 65% the national popular vote. That's messed up.