my brief analysis of the situation is as follows:
1) information suggesting that the oil is being transported through turkey should be taken skeptically.
2) information suggesting that the oil is moving south should be taken less skeptically.
the reason for this is that one of the major conflicts in the region is between the turks and saudis for control of the oil. all information suggests that the primary mover here is the saudis, rather than the turks. turkish proxies remain in fierce battle with saudi proxies. it is contradictory to conclude that saudi proxies are shipping oil through turkey.
that said, it's not impossible that isis has switched sides. but, i don't see any direct evidence of this.
so, why would the russians do this? it is likely for internal consumption, and may signal a shift in russian hostilities to turkey. this would hopefully further shift nato's focus out of ukraine, which is what the russians were always angling for in syria.
the turks should take this extremely seriously.
3) suggestions that iraq is shifting towards russian influence should be taken seriously.
4) suggestions that the americans are funding isis as a part of a destabilization regime, and are not seriously targeting them, should be taken seriously.
my understanding is that the "big plan" here is saudi expansion into iraq and syria - and probably jordan and eventually lebanon as well. this is also happening in libya. sisi is essentially a saudi pawn. together, this creates the context of saudi territorial expansion. short term boundary lines are constructed around iran, turkey and algeria- although all three may see eventual destabilization. the idea is the reconstruction of a saudi-centered caliphate. the americans would have various reasons to support this, but it's being primarily driven by saudi money that is pushing for the historical british promise of a recreated arab empire, which was made during world war one and put on hold during the cold war due to russian influence in the region.
5) the possibilities for "blowback" are unclear, but substantial.