Not sure what the precise terms of the treaty were, but the fact is the Russians blindly and insanely attacked Britain. Alliances are defence pacts, not suicide pacts.
No dishonour involved. (Not to anyone sane, anyway.)
Very interesting and it would be even more so if you spent some time familiarizing yourself with some of the relevant facts.
Some comments on your scenario:
1. Russia is losing the war pretty much along the same lines as in OTL:
(a) Addition of the 15K British troops to the Japanese forces in Manchuria is pathetic (check size of the forces involved: at Mukden each side had approximately 300K and 1000 guns) and is not counterbalancing arrival of the new Russian troops to the theater.
(b) Earlier destruction of the 2nd Pacific fleet would not make things worse for Russia. Probably they would be better off because at least some ships are managing to escape and being defeated by the British navy is not as shameful as being fully destroyed by the Japanese.
(c) Japan is better off only financially (if the Britain is ready to finance the war) but not too much better in the terms of the troops numbers so Russia may be somewhat harder pressed in the terms of the territorial concessions but not too much so.
2. British naval blockade of Russia as economic factor is a "beauty".
Just few annoying facts:
(a) Russian commercial navy by 1901 amounted to 745 steamships (364,360 tons) and 2,293 sail ships (269,359 tons). Overwhelming majority of the steamers were on the Black & Azov Seas (316 ships, 186,774 tons) and Caspian Sea (261 ships, 119,932 tons). In other words, mostly safe from the British attacks.
(b) In 1901 out of all naval
import/export of 18,163K tons 16,265K tons had been carried by the foreign ships while the cargo carried by those under the Russian flag amounted only to 10.4 % (
http://istmat.info/node/65). Commercial traffic on the Pacific (the most vulnerable) was much smaller than on any other sea. So unless Britain starts enforcing a complete blockade causing problems to other European states, this part of your grand strategy is not going to work. OTOH, even just few armed fast speed steamships acting as the raiders could cause a considerable damage to the British commercial traffic before they are caught and sunk (as was the case with the German raiders during WWI).
3. Britain was the 3rd biggest investor into Russian economy after Belgium and France. In 1901: 181.5 mln rubles, 110.1 and 92.7, correspondingly with Germany being the remote 4th - 25.2 . What's interesting is that by 1915 Britain became the biggest investor. In other words, Rusophobia or not, there were serious long-term economic interests and investment possibilities which would put some restraint on your "going for broke" scenario. (
https://research-journal.org/econom...-i-rossijskoj-federacii-komparativnyj-analiz/)
4. All that separatist/revolutionary stuff is not going to fly by a simple reason: too many regular troops are stationed in the European Russia (Russian problem in the RJW was inability to transport enough troops and ammunition to the Far East, not a general shortage of the troops and material) and there are no meaningful "separatist forces" capable of anything noticeably bigger then few acts of a terrorism. As for the general loss of prestige, rather ironically, after the RJW troops participating in fighting had been sneered upon by their colleagues who remained at home: standard perception was that they were incompetent and corrupt (see for example "50 Years in Service" by the "red" count Ignatieff). So, no, army in general was not compromised in a public opinion or in self-esteem and the navy was not too important branch of service to be a decisive factor.
5. Of course, the British help to the rebelling Poles is a good idea but it is even more problematic in 1905 than it was in 1944: how could it be done for the landlocked territory with Germany actively looking for the Russian alliance? How about looking at the map?
6. Blaming Witte is an interesting twist taking into an account the fact that he was on a record protesting the policies which led to the war. Not that firing him from the position of the chairman of the
Committee of Ministers would have any practical meaning because this position was a purely decorative one. Basically, in 1903 he was kicked upstairs from the really powerful position of Minister of Finances.
7. Most important outcome of the whole schema: goodbye Russian-French alliance, welcome Russian-German one. Willy tried to sign it in OTL during the RJW but the whole thing failed due to the existing Russian-French treaty. Now, no matter rightly or wrongly, agreement with France is thrown out of the window (an issue of the French loans is "interesting" one). So your scenario most probably means a massive political realignment all the way to the restoration of
Dreikaiserbund with France being isolated politically and militarily: its potential alliance with Britain would not be able to prevent it from a speedy defeat on land in the case of a German attack. Germany-Russia-AH are dominating European continent, WWI is impossible and Britain is mostly kept out of the European affairs.
