Respectfully disagree, Nikolai II:s Russia was heading for some kind of collapse. WW I did what wars allways do, it rallied the people around their leaders first and magnified the internal problems then.
Make Nicky disappear and turn Russian into constitutional monarchy and then maybe.
Even if Russia would have internal trouble, even deep trouble due to the Tsar's actions (or, as it may be, inaction), I believe it would not lose Finland and Poland unless it ends up in a war against outside parties or unless the other powers decide to intervene in Russian internal affairs in some significant way. Remember that IOTL the events of 1905 and 1917 were both prompted by
a losing war and destabilisation and deep dissatisfaction caused by that chain of events. A "rally around the flag" effect only worked as long as victory seemed likely in the near future. WWI did more to hurt the monarchy than to help it, by boosting disruptive trends and processes inside Russia that otherwise might have been manageable (even if only so-and-so). Without such a catalyst like a losing war, I believe Nicholas II could stay on the throne (and the Tsarist government in control) despite internal trouble, even if his position would become increasingly tenuous. Absent external factors like war and foreign intervention, even if the Tsar
is eventually sidelined, I think it would more likely be by a group from inside the traditional elite that decides that things must change, not by a revolutionary mob.