It was,
my response was that you win your own war first, THEN you worry about helping your allies
I was the first to mention this.
Although I aggree that the Russian attack was organized and executed poorly I do not aggree with the statement above.
The Russians could not win their own war first. They were not fighting their own war. If France had fallen Russia had been doomed. That was the hole reason for the alliance between republican, liberal, mansonic France and monarchist, oppressive, "true believer" Russia: None of them had a chance alone.
Sometimes you have to do something that is stupid from your point of view for the benefit of the team.
It doesn't matter that he was defeated before the two corps arrived (nobody says he was a good battlefield commander) important is that they could not participate in the battle at the Marne.
... And I doubt that the Russians could have steamrolled to Berlin. They had only two armies (against one German), the fortresses of Königsberg, Danzig, Posen and Thorn and two major rivers on their wa,y would have had to advance on foot and, most important: the Germans had the advantage of interior line (and their very good rail system) they could have scrambled an army together to stop the Russians at hte Oder.
Best Case for Russia: German army destroyed, East Prussia taken.
This borders on the Montgomery vs. Patton controversy that has raged acros this board for countless times:
Bold, risk-taking commanders (Patton, Churchill, Blücher, ...) do, by the very nature of risks, sometimes screw up big.
Careful, elaborate planners (Mc Cellan, Montogomery, Schwarzenberg) do often miss the critical moment.
Really good generals (Napoleon, Moltke, Mannstein, Lee, ...) can ballance both.