Definitely not by the time that the front was that far-east the Whites were collapsing in on themselves, barely anyone could stomach each other and they'd been undergoing a string of defeats, which would be even worse ITTL. By my reading the White movement once it was solidly on the backfoot just collapsed into infighting.
I'm considering it though my reading on Centeral Asia does make it think it'd be very hard for the Whites to maintain any sort of holding there, because it was de-facto in a state of anarchy for a lot of the war. I'm also not going to spoil too much but the British might not be in the shape to intervene anywhere in Russia...
Thanks for the replies.
About the first one, yes, that's true, but with Germany going red in 1918, the US would most likely be more worried than OTL and therefore do more to keep at least Siberia away from Petrograd's control - for all sorts of reasons, from pure economic interests to maintaining a rump state to even the idea that Red Germany might be able to use the resources of the region to start the war again (all sorts of ideas would be floating around and if Britain seems to be facing a real chance of falling to the "revolutionary wave", as you seem to allude, policy-makers in Washington would probably try every trick in the book to forestall such an event; therefore it might not be impossible for the Americans to try to organise local politicians and elites outside the White camp as a political alternative in the region - iirc, the region was more more "liberal" in some ways than the European section of Russia proper so local landowners, businessmen and even farmers etc could perhaps be used to some extent. Again, this would most likely fail, for Lenin and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership wouldn't cease until the banners of the Red Army were in Sakhalin and the conditions for Siberian independence wouldn't be there, while the region would still have a considerable number of Bolshevik allies and sympathisers - railway workers, miners etc (there were certain events before the war like the massacre of the miners working in British - owned gold mines near the river Lena in 1912 or 1913 iirc) that would want to unite with their comrades west of the Urals. Perhaps the experience of a more active local political scene in Siberia in 1918 - ? , even if brief in duration, could have some interesting consequences further down the road (since you mentioned in a previous reply here that the USSR wouldn't be founded, instead remaining the RSFSR, perhaps a Siberian autonomous SSR or something equivalent could gain prominence as an idea. (just a thought of mine).
Although I touched it more above, could this perhaps lead to a sort of US-Japanese split with regard to intervention in the area, with the US trying to organise local political and economic forces and elites while Tokyo would support the "devils it knew", ie the White commanders, who would probably start acting more like warlords?
About the second one: you still have Bukhara (and secondarily Khiva), while the grip of the local Bolsheviks in Tashkent was rather weak - Kolesov's blunders and a sort of "Apartheid" approach (ie iirc there was a feeling that it had been the Russians of Turkestan that had carried out the Revolution there, so the Revolution concerned them and only them, with the local population remaining in a position similar to its previous one). Although Britain may be hit by strike waves etc, London didn't exactly involve itself too much in British activities in Central Asia at the time except when important decisions were involved, iirc, it was mainly the British administration in India and nearby British diplomats and agents in Meshed and Kashgar that bore the brunt of directing of the intervention. The British intervention in the area mainly began after Russia dropped out of the war, with the chief objective being the prevention of the repatriation of the German and Austrian prisoners held there, the use of the area's economic resources by the Central Powers and blocking attempts of the Germans and the Ottomans to gain a foothold in Central Asia in order to be able to foment anti-British activity in India. Perhaps if Germany seems to be teetering closer to revolution as the armistice day nears, the British officials in India might decide to keep their missions in the area longer than OTL, in order to monitor the situation more (mainly out of fear of the Bolsheviks being able to direct more of their energies to Asia with their European flank secure and potentially having the means to pursue more ambitious goals in the region). I guess that an intervention would most likely focus more on setting up local forces to combat the Bolsheviks and the Red Army - an almost herculean task considering the mere fact that they would somehow have to get troops of the emirs, local insurgents and White units to fight together and not conduct skirmishes against each other every third day. Using Indian troops would probably be out of the question due to fears of mutiny and exposure to "revolutionary subversion", so the British would most likely focus on providing money, arms, training, advisers and intelligence. Again, it would most likely fail, but it could make life somewhat hard for Petrograd in the area. In the medium and long term, the British could perhaps try to build up Persia as an anti-Soviet/communist buffer and try to keep Afghanistan more under its influence, which could prove interesting. Of course all these would depend on the ability of the British to finance all these operations, which means that the US has to keep the checkbook open, but given the circumstances, it might not be impossible - although whether that would be to the extent that it could give Petrograd real headaches is up to debate.
And a second question: with the Bolsheviks being perceived as more menacing with a German revolution and revolution sweeping through Europe east of the Rhine, would the British and the French change their policy vis-a-vis the Ottomans post-armistice/ the Nationalists? On the one hand, the desire to maintain Anatolia outside Communist influence might make the British (and perhaps the French, if they aren't too busy dealing with the Germans) (the Italians would probably face their own very serious domestic unrest and thus not be able to pay much attention) more "attentive" to Istanbul's sensitivities and therefore, the alt-Sevres could perhaps be milder than OTL, with Anatolia remaining under full Ottoman control and perhaps the British and the French trying to use the Ottomans more in the Caucasus (not sure how the timeline develops though, I am assuming that not much changes in the Middle East until October 1918 / when the Ottomans sign an armistice).