I disagree with the articles assumptions. You cannot compare it to what the US has done with its air strikes on ISIS because the US by many accounts has done airstrikes very sparingly and not concentrated enough. I have heard many military analysts express disbelief of how few rounds of air strikes are done against ISIS in light of all of the atrocities they have committed. I do not believe that will be the case with Putin as he will use maximum strikes.
I also disagree with the premise that the articles says you cant use dumb bombs because of the innocent lives lost and collateral damage that would occur. Duhh, this is Putin's Russia we are talking about. He could give a rats ass about that stuff. He will keep Assad in power and he and Iran will eventually go for oil currently held by Isis in Iraq.
Just because the Washington Post writes something doesn't make it true. I also saw the Reuters piece and others that sounded the exact same way as the post. I know more than they forgot about the Middle East and I study that region more than most. My analysis when it comes to that region turns out right most of the time. Much more often than these so-called writers pretending to be experts.
Mark my word on one thing F6, Russia is going to go after that Isis oil in Iraq. They may take it all for themselves or may share with Iran but they will be taking it. You didn't read or hear that anywhere yet but from me and you will see I am proven correct. The media and Obama will eventually get around to figuring it out.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
