I agree with your analyze, but:![]()
Are you sure that the allies would be so smart that they do not follow? Would that be compatibel with strategic thinking in those days?
And even if you are right about the crimean front and Baltic front, what about the Austrian-Hngarian front?
Even tough I agree with you, Im not so sure that the allies does not need a final victory at the peace negotiation table. Peacet reaties were rather important in those days.
Oddball
They may not have been smart enough, although I suspect a few would have. However as an alliance with their differing interests it would be difficult getting all or most of them to agree to a march on Moscow. Not to mention a lot of their senior officers will have been around at the time of Napoleon's trip in 1812.
By defeating the Russians in the Crimean the allies have both achieved their primary aim and shattered the image of Russian dominance in eastern Europe. The Russian empire is struggling economically with its trade crippled and its richest agricultural areas are very vulnerable as is its capital. Also its vulnerable and prominent Pacific territories may well become tempting targets. Those are of minimal economic importance but significant in terms of prestige, which the empire has very little left by this point.
If, under this situation, the Russian empire doesn't make peace its weaknesses are likely to led to widespread unrest and even greater decay in its political and military position.
Steve