I think its meaning will be defined in retrospect by what follows. I think a return to Clinton-style “send a message” gunboat diplomacy wouldn’t be the worst.

I think it might be a fighting retreat, that we’ll accept Assad in power but that doesn’t mean we’re accepting Syria as inviolable Russian sphere of influence. Their anti-air denies the US control of the air (and thus ground - America hasn’t fought without air superiority since early Korea) but stopping the Tomahawks would require naval superiority in the Eastern Mediterranean, which would be trivial to rally NATO against.

If anything I’d think the Russians have more chance to apply counterpressure in the Baltics, where NATO couldn’t defend on the ground as is but preemptively stationing an army would be a drain and a provocation.