WI: Russia Defeated in Early 1915

Another possibility is the collapse of the Caucasian theater of ww1. In history, Russia pushed the Ottoman troops into Eastern part of Anatolia and then Enver Pasha led Ottomon troops pushed back and gained Baku. If Russian would collapse, the scale of the Armenian Genocide would have been greater. The Confederated nation of Georgia and Armenia could be stronger in union because both Georgian and Armenian leadership would know they could only rely on their own strength to fend off the Ottomans. The audacity of those two peoples could secure two nations after ww1. However, when Bolshevik revolution came around, could Georgia and Armenia new nations survive?
 
And you're missing reality: not seeking peace destroyed the Russian state. The US could easily have kept fighting the Vietnam War but the public didn't want it. Russia, if facing such a general collapse would not survive if it simply held hoping for the Allies to save them. Wars are not unconditional surrender. It is practically a sport to the Europeans moving the boundaries from conflict to conflict. That is why I mentioned the Russo-Japanese conflict. The Russians could have won it over the long haul but if victory seems too costly, the public will steal your ability to continue the war. So if the Russians lost roughly 2-3 armies, are in retreat all along the front, and no one is coming to save them...they will keep fighting?
He seems to be presuming that the Russians will basically fight like the Confederates and WW2 Germans did, by holding on until the very end. But for those two, there was no massive organized resistance movement against the government like there was in Russia with the Kerenskyites and Bolsheviks; yes, there were some examples like the Free State of Jones or the German mutineers at the Battle of Castle Itter, but these were small scale revolts of little actual consequence to the prosecution of the war itself. Now, at least in my opinion, Nicholas, Davis, and Hitler were all to an extent opportunists, Nicholas would do anything to keep his throne, Davis would do anything to preserve the Confederacy and Hitler would do anything to preserve the Reich. But Davis and Hitler had the support of the people; Nicholas did not, thus why they could afford to hold on till the very end as their chances of being overthrown were miniscule. In this scenario, I could see Nicholas making a deal with the Kaiser to keep his throne in exchange for a number of border territories, ranging from Poland, Finland, Bessarabia and Transcaucasia to something akin to Brest-Litovsk.
 
And you're missing reality: not seeking peace destroyed the Russian state. The US could easily have kept fighting the Vietnam War but the public didn't want it. Russia, if facing such a general collapse would not survive if it simply held hoping for the Allies to save them. Wars are not unconditional surrender. It is practically a sport to the Europeans moving the boundaries from conflict to conflict. That is why I mentioned the Russo-Japanese conflict. The Russians could have won it over the long haul but if victory seems too costly, the public will steal your ability to continue the war. So if the Russians lost roughly 2-3 armies, are in retreat all along the front, and no one is coming to save them...they will keep fighting?

Ok, so we're talking a scenario where the army is literally a broken mob running into the hills and deserting in a total route? Not very likely for a WW I style army, but alright. Then it's a non-entity in terms of the political conflict, in which case it's a free for all, no holds barred struggle for political authority if Nicky skips town (which, if he sees no hope of holding his ground at home is a distinct possibility) or he pulls Loyalists into Petrograd to hold out as the rebels fall on themselves to figure out who's in charge and gets to direct the Russian state (he likely still loses, but slower). In that case, he probably does sign a peace treaty with Germany for what good it would do, but the terms of the "Republic's" peace would rip that fragile coalition of diverse elements apart, likely acting as proxy for many other issues.
 
Ok, so we're talking a scenario where the army is literally a broken mob running into the hills and deserting in a total route? Not very likely for a WW I style army, but alright. Then it's a non-entity in terms of the political conflict, in which case it's a free for all, no holds barred struggle for political authority if Nicky skips town (which, if he sees no hope of holding his ground at home is a distinct possibility) or he pulls Loyalists into Petrograd to hold out as the rebels fall on themselves to figure out who's in charge and gets to direct the Russian state (he likely still loses, but slower). In that case, he probably does sign a peace treaty with Germany for what good it would do, but the terms of the "Republic's" peace would rip that fragile coalition of diverse elements apart, likely acting as proxy for many other issues.
If it's the Russian Army we're speaking of, then yes, I feel it could be called a broken mob. When going to the frontline, a large number of the soldiers didn't even have equipment. There's a good reason the Russians lost countless battles to outnumbered forces time and time again in the Great War, and if they lose more and more of the men that actually have equipment, then it's a disaster.
 
If it's the Russian Army we're speaking of, then yes, I feel it could be called a broken mob. When going to the frontline, a large number of the soldiers didn't even have equipment. There's a good reason the Russians lost countless battles to outnumbered forces time and time again in the Great War, and if they lose more and more of the men that actually have equipment, then it's a disaster.

I think it's a little reductive to describe the whole Russian army in terms of its least prioritized units. Certainly, their ability to supply troops was outstripped by demands, but they also made plenty of respectable defenses and advances (particularly against the Habsburgs, who's ineffective command system and logistics nightmare can't be ignored no matter how many stupid pills you give the Czarist officers) and the further into Russia the CP get the more Russian infastructure weaknesses fade and CP difficulties increase. Unless you're screwing Russia to a laughable degree, they aren't going to collapse in 15' just because the door got kicked in.
 
I think it's a little reductive to describe the whole Russian army in terms of its least prioritized units. Certainly, their ability to supply troops was outstripped by demands, but they also made plenty of respectable defenses and advances (particularly against the Habsburgs, who's ineffective command system and logistics nightmare can't be ignored no matter how many stupid pills you give the Czarist officers) and the further into Russia the CP get the more Russian infastructure weaknesses fade and CP difficulties increase. Unless you're screwing Russia to a laughable degree, they aren't going to collapse in 15' just because the door got kicked in.
Don’t forget this POD is assuming that the Austrians are much more competent then they were in OTL and don’t have the severe losses in Galicia in the real Great War, with many of those losses now transferred onto the Russians.

Now, I will say that you have put up a good argument for how the Russian Revolution will not be immediate. But I do believe it will come much sooner than 1917, possibly in early-to-mid 1916.
 
Germany can shift its forces to the West along with Austria-Hungary focusing on Serbia.
France is in trouble, Serbia is getting destroyed.
 
Top