I mean a total victory for either party would have been impossible, and that was pretty well known at that time by both parties. Japan had no chance of beating Russia on land by just pure numbers not to mention any sort of tactical understanding. Meanwhile, Russia's navy in total was somewhere between "floating bathtubs" and "seaworthy on paper only" and would have been torn to shreds in any battle with the Imperial Japanese Navy, which matches any in the world besides the British Royal Navy. Any war would be Russia kicking Japan out of Korea, and then just them staring at each other until Russia got sick of trying to hold the notoriously rebellious Korea and signed a peace deal. Frankly, both nations knew this and had better things to spend their blood and treasure on, which no matter what the propaganda at the time (and today depending on where you live) says that was the reason behind the treaty, not any calls for peace.
Well, somewhat isolationist. US and Russia still got along well.
This actually was what lead to the concept of "Commodity Internationalism" by many anti-colonial and communist thinkers. The general idea goes that America and Russia are so large, have such massive populations, and are fairly resource-rich, that with the rise of the Bougiusie as the major force of political life they don't actually see the need to interact with the wider world beyond basic trading deals, thus they have escaped the complex alliances and constant warfare the European powers have engaged in. This line of thinking, first put forth by the likes of Rosa Luxemburg states that as industrial capital expanded it faced a never-ending need for more. More labor, more markets, more resources, and nations like France, Germany, and Britain were unable to meet this need internally and thus needed to constantly try to gain these things through conquest and colonialism.
Now this concept has a lot of detractors, most notably the fact that Russia and America's relative isolation is just that, relative. They might not have sent massive armies into an endless meatgrinder in the early '20s like most of Europe, but it's not like they didn't have military adventures aimed at aiding their captains of industry. Just ask the people of Persia and Cuba. The major difference and the one that Communists of the Luxemburg school of thought used to explain this is that after they march their armies in they integrate territory, making it part of the overall state rather than rule over them the way the colonial powers do with their
victims colonies.
Honestly I'm curious what a hypothetical "Russian revolution," would look like. Marx's writings weren't unheard of, but at the same time, Rasputin advocated for many reforms that depending on the time, would have rendered a marxists revolution unnecessary. A hyper nationalist one would alienate the whole of the empire.... maybe a democratic one? But Russian literacy wasnt very high until the 20s so it would have been very oligarchical, rendering it moot.
The biggest issue with Russian communism is the fact that they didn't really have a proletariate class. At least not in the way Marx was describing. A fraction of the population worked in factories and they were about 20 years behind the industrial revolution. They only caught up thanks to the Great War setting most of Western Europe back a few decades. Most communist thinkers these days agree that Russia is unlikely to ever have a revolution for much the same reason America likely won't have one, the population is basically reactionary in most ways. They'll rally around common-sense initiatives like weekends, maximum working hours, minimum wage, no child labor, but the people are, as a famous Russian communist put it, "Too enamored with their national myths. The Czar Father for the peasant, and the Glorious Constitution for the Cowboy".