I’ve been seeing Facebook memes suggesting that Putin was able to do more damage to ISIS with a few air strikes than Obama was able to do in… however long ISIS has been a problem.
Is there any truth to this? Is Russia’s campaign against ISIS actually making a difference where the US intervention has failed?
Well, since the Russian airstrikes in Syria seem to have been targeted at anti-Bashar rebels, and not at Daesh at all, no. Pro-Russian propaganda notwithstanding.
I’m pretty sure the answer is “no” without reading any further than that. 
A small portion of the Russian airstrikes appears to have hit ISIS targets, but the primary impact of the bombings has been a noted improvement in Assad’s positions. He’s consolidated and strengthened his hold on territory he already controls and has started pressuring the rebels that had previously been pressuring him.
Probably the source of such nonsense is Putin’s troll army:
Strengthing Assad will help defeat ISIS in Syria. ISIS is a result of Assad’s loss of control.
Yeah, that kind of answers the OP right there. IOW, it’s a load of Russian propaganda, and that the reality is the Putin et al are there to stiffen and back up Assad. In theory, by doing so, sometime down the road, that will ‘defeat ISIS in Syria’. Sure it will. 
Jesus Christ, you can’t spend so your time on here and think this is mostly about ISIS.
As usual, your obscure post is difficult to parse. Are you referring to the OP, the AK84’s post, to my post or just ranting about something else? What is ‘this’ that is not about ISIS and who are ‘you’ that aren’t spending enough time here absorbing, um, something?
All of the above.
Agreed, partially. ISIS is also a result of the Iraqi government’s lack of control of Iraq, as well. I agree that a stronger Assad can help defeat ISIS. I don’t know that I believe Russia has enough desire to commit the muscle required to alter the balance in Syria to the point that Assad wins, though.
Or, one could also say that if Assad leaves and a respectable government steps in, then many of the rebels now focused on fighting the regime would turn against the extremist groups like ISIL.
And it is these rebels that are currently fighting Assad, that could be turned against ISIL if Assad leaves, that the Russians are actively bombing.
Exactly.
It was the Free Syrian Army that turned an American journalist over to the al-Nusra front (fortunately for him, al-Nusra was still primarily looking for ransom money and not beheading videos ala ISIS, so he was ultimately returned home alive.) I think most of the groups against Assad are jihadist terrorist groups. There is no “there there” with them, they won’t form a government anyone likes.
How about the Kurds? They terrorists as well (I’m asking from a NOT Turkey perspective btw :p).
Eh, the PKK has clearly used what I’d call unacceptable terrorist tactics in the past. The government of the United States officially labels the PKK a terrorist group, not just Turkey. That being said, most of the Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria IMO are not terrorists. But they lack the manpower to rule all of Syria, they aren’t a viable alternative to Assad.
Except the PKK is a Turkish group that is ASSISTING groups in Syria fighting against Assad. That’s why I asked for a non-Turkish perspective.
I’m unsure why you think they don’t have the man power, since they (well, there are several groups) are one of the more powerful factions fighting against both ISIS and Assad.
Assad’s loss of control is a result of Assad’s brutal dictatorship.
Assad doesn’t have the manpower either. Russia can lend it to him, or exert it on his behalf, for a while. Not forever.
There will be no “ruling all of Syria” again, by any regional power.
Please cite the BDA that led to the conclusion that Russian airstrikes are more successful than our own.