Agreed that Lenin's and Trotsky's presence in Russia would be necessary for the Bolshevik Revolution to take place. However, if Germany has an opportunity to do this during wartime, it will send Lenin to Russia (as for Trotsky, I think that he lived in the U.S. back then and thus could get to Russia on his own).
Agreed that Britain was likely to distance itself from the Entente starting from 1916-1917.
However, if World War I breaks out in 1916 or 1917 with Britain (and the U.S., of course) being neutral, will the Franco-Russian alliance have enough power to win this war before Russia descends into revolution?
My thinking is that 1914 is the "perfect" storm, if Europe can pass the July Crisis without war, and I do think that is a plausible option, then it faces other sparks in 1914 such as the potential Greek sinking of the Ottoman battleship to be delivered in August(?), and so on, but past 1914 the mental math of the various sides begins to shift. I am not certain we see the pressures just continue to build or not, I do not see a clear reason war needs to come as early as 1916 or 1917 lest you see something in Russia giving the Czar a push for war, but in that event Russia is the clearly the aggressor and I suspect the Entente fractures.
First let us ponder the likelihood of a shift in government in Britain, the Liberals are likely to lose the upcoming election due in 1917 I believe. Home Rule in Ireland is now the biggest (domestic) issue and although I do not think a conservative government will go isolationist, I think it refocuses on Empire and Ireland and lets the "understanding" with France go back to obscure at best. This is a factor elsewhere too. Every one of these states had internal issues to address or redress.
Germany will see an increasingly restless Socialist party seeking to assert its true power and the conservatives throwing up the road blocks, the liberals will need to choose sides along with the Zentrum, all likely leading to a lot of political in fighting that will redirect the focus inward. I do not see a revolution but the shadow of 1848 is there and the world will look ending to the Kaiser and elites, but I think Germany survives its next evolution towards true limited monarchy. Add to this the aging out of the generation who won in 1870 and feel confident in war as statecraft. This is another factor. We are in the beginning of a generation shift that will bring a whole new set of personalities to bear.
France will see the generation who lost in 1870 fade, a younger generation may not feel as attached to A-L, the French political winds may shift abruptly, if it heads vaguely left then Autocratic and arguable Theocratic Russia becomes a weird friend for Republican France. The populace of A-L was on the cusp of becoming better assimilated and one might see this hot spot become much cooler in ten or twenty or thirty years.
The USA will have a completely different election cycle in 1920 without the war and its "peace" from 1914 to 1919. And the Great Depression may be a very different economic shock, or not at all. One might see the USA go on a very different path indeed.
And so on. What of Germany switching to an oil-fired fleet in the 1920s? What effect of an oil boom in OE beginning in the 1920s? Butterflies and new threats to peace galore with every set of years passing.
But to return to your problem of a war delayed to 1916 or 1917, I think we have to wonder if Lenin ever gets to lead his revolution, since he will be that much older by the time Russia begins it crumble. And I agree that Russia had a lot of rigidity that must break rather than bend, I am not as certain a revolution like 1917 is the only outcome, we will have a lot of little nuanced changes that certainly can alter just how the thing crumbles. At bottom I think France and Russia will prove unable to over match Germany and A-H, especially with Italy on the side and both Bulgaria and the OE in the wings. It really takes the British Empire to balance the scales, and a long war of attrition in which no one can truly win (in part because Britain could entice the Italians, Romanians, Japanese, etc. to also enter the fray). This is why all discussions seem to obsess over British neutrality. And we assume Russia collapses (and A-H too) because any evenly matched conflict should be a grind and both those Empires had a lot of cracks that are a slippery slope once the state buckles. This is what frays my mind more often than not, one quickly finds oneself in a world so unlike what we endeavor to know.