IMO most players were looking for a "way out of a "no win" situation for any political interest, without loosing face". That is why it was grasped on (regardless of whether it will be effective in curbing what may be a whack of chemical weapons in Syria). It likely does not change what some see as a bloody "civil war" and likely merely postpones future political conflicts over some of the broader issues.

What is clear to me is after frustrations of little gains with military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Lybia, western citizens are tired (at least temporarily) of old military approaches and futile direct intervention in the affairs of others. As one USA citizen stated on CNN, "why does the USA act as if it is the policeman of the entire world". Maybe the citizens actually "get it", and the politicians will eventually see the light?

A good question: is the re-rise of Putin and Russia in International affairs temporary? If so, is it a good thing as a counter-balance (as Galloway has claimed)? Or, will it lead to another arms race and a second cold-war type of situation.