Well, the CDU/CSU foreign policy spokesman in the German Bundestag, Roderich Kiesewetter, pointed out yesterday that if people really wanted to protect the Kurds, diplomatic maneuvers wouldn't help as much as a UN humanitarian security zone guarded by the EU with a mere 30-40,000 troops, including German. Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer followed that up with the announcement that she would seek talks with France, the UK and US at the upcoming meeting of her NATO colleagues for a solution in coordination with Turkey and Russia; though she was evasive on possible German military commitments, saying that would be a question for parliament (in fact the Bundestag can merely vote yes or no on deployments proposed by the government, without modification).
I'm not sure if those are serious intentions or merely trolling the coalition partner and most of the opposition, who have talked a good deal about how bad the Turkish intervention is and that Erdogan should not be let get away with it, complaining that Germany is acting impotently - but are typically reluctant when it comes to military action of its own. Most demands have been for various sanctions, and in fact Angela Merkel has announced that no arms will be delivered to Turkey under present conditions.
It would be fun to see how the Left Party in particular, which has always been the loudest champion of the Kurds, would try to handle the proposal of German soldiers protecting them when they are also pretty strictly anti-military deployment, and anti-military period. Though I don't doubt they would come up with a completely paradox position having it both ways, like when MP Christine Buchholz (Hezbollah, Offenbach) famously called for solidarity with resistance in besieged Kobane, and stopping US bombing in their support. That triggered no end of ridicule, of course.
30-40,000 troops per Kiesewetter is of course either playing it very safe, or deliberately raising the stakes very high; I can't see a Europe that's just reorienting towards the East again - or in fact any other actor - bringing up that kind of numbers. As the protection factor of the removed US troops was political rather than military anyway (that is, until Trump showed he'll readily yield to demands of a third-rate sorta-ally to get out of the way), a high four-digit number would probably be sufficient for this role. That might actually be doable, but I'm not holding my breath just yet.
There is no necessary inconsistency here at all, if your position is that IS and HTS etc. should be defeated by the Syrian government and their allies, and that the best thing the west can do is cease supporting opponents of the government and frustrating it with sanctions etc. - and to just generally get out of the way.
The Russian involvement is consistent with medium term peace in a way that US/NATO/EU etc. involvement is not, because only the latter has some interest in keeping some anti-government insurgency going or at least some threat of one on the table.