The question is who you believe - the rebels or Konashenkov.
http://www.rg.ru/2015/10/02/minoboroni-site.html
And don't forget, there has been collateral damage from the US-led coalition air strikes. Tbh, I don't think there has ever been a war without collateral damage. But is there proof of collateral damage from the Russian air strikes. I haven't seen any.
As for me, I believe the Russian effort is the only effective solution to the crisis in Syria. The other countries want to spare al-Nursa but they are terrorists too. And eventually, all those terrorists will return to their own countries and create serious issues there too. They have to be stopped in Syria before that happens.
So nobody really likes war but sometimes it's tons better than the alternative. The Russian air strikes in Syria could save a lot of lives in the future - especially if it ends the civil war. Way too many people have been left homeless or killed in that war already.
So yeah, there may be some collateral damage but in the end, those terrorists don't care how much collateral damage they cause.
Also, Russia has as much right to be in Syria as the US-led coalition - even more because they were asked by the legitimate Syrian government. And I don't think anyone wants to see another 9/11, bombs at train stations or in buses in Volgograd just before New Years, or dead taxi drivers in Stavropol. Half of Syria is full of those terrorists. If they don't want to risk collateral damage then they can refuse to bomb them. But if they refuse then how many people will die in the future from terror attacks?
And I wouldn't have any worries about Russia being vilified over the bombings. As for me, I would rather be doing the right thing and get vilified than doing the wrong thing and getting rewards.
EDIT - About the corruption in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, from an ex-member that broke his oath of secrecy:
http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-official...132421988.html