It might quell some of the more outlandish discussion about Trump as a Manchurian president, but this doesn't resolve some of the other questions re: collusion.
Trump still could have colluded with the Russians previously before performing this major 180.
It's not quite a 180. Trump alerted the Russians before he executed the bombing strikes. While Russia is indeed for the Assad government, Trump is veritably better for the Russians than Hillary was. Electing him was definitely in Russia's interests. Having Wikileaks release information from Putin's intelligence agencies was in Trump's interests. I am pretty sure both sides thought they were benefiting from an indirect mutual collusion. That's pretty clear from the open dialogue and the weakening of the hardline against Ukraine in the GOP foreign policy. So we know that there was indirectly collusion. What we don't know if there was an explicit quid pro quo (and even then so, it's clear both sides benefited from working together via Wikileaks). There's no evidence that Russia was behind the leaks other than simply taking the word of the DNC and their hirelings Crowstrike as gospel truth.
Assad is on his way out, although we might see a further planned 'escalation' before we get to a peace agreement.
Intelligence Assets who didn't present any evidence for their claim. They said they trusted what Crowdstrike said and they engaged in speculation about what might or might not be Putin's motives.
Sanctions haven't been lifted because the US hasn't yet got a deal with Russia on lifting them.
What do you think would be the sticking points on such a deal?
Both agree on defeating Isis
Both want an end to the fighting, presumably involving some kind of balkanisation of Syria along roughly ceasefire lines
US wants Assad out of power, that's doable for Russia
Russia wants to keep its very expensive Naval base, that's doable for the US
Both a deal on the oil pipeline they could do a deal on that.
I'm not seeing what you think is the big sticking point for a deal
Poll
