I've watched the video and wasn't entirely impressed by the scenario.
I think a better Russian WWI alternate history would be had Russia actually contributed troops to the Gallipoli campaign. Since the 18th century, Constantinople was always a Russian imperial ambition. 6 months after Gallipoli, Russia begins a large-scale invasion of the Ottoman Caucasus and pushes a significant distance into Anatolia, putting the Ottomans off-guard. They successfully halt the Russians and Western Allies for a time, but by 1917, with new British invasions from Egypt and Kuwait, combined with Gallipoli and the Russians into Armenia, the Ottomans throw in the towel and call for a ceasefire (the Ottomans likely lose the war sooner given that the Young Turks are in power...)
Russian gains against the Ottoman Empire would reinvigorate the Russian public and keep them loyal to the Czar and would likely have de-radicalized the Russian political activists, even if some kind of revolution does occur in Russia.
With the Ottomans suing for peace in 1917, it is likely Germany would also sue for peace sooner than OTL and Russia actually gains significant bits of the Ottoman Empire at Versailles, though perhaps not Constantinople given it's strategic importance; it is probably turned into an international city like OTL (or a post-WW2 divided Berlin).
What happens to the Romanovs in this timeline? If Czar Nicholas is succeeded by a capable Romanov, then I think it's likely that 20th century Russia will follow 19th century France's history in the retaining of an emperor but with a strong parliament or having to vie for power with commoner military strongmen rising from the ranks. If not, the Russian Empire would have probably been dissolved sooner or later and be replaced by a military strongman from the left or right, likely a nationalist. Russia wouldn't become as much of a Communist hellhole as they are today, that's for sure. And they would probably be more pro-free markets too, which is a good thing for all Russians.
