The Dutch or Americans aren't seeking to stop shipping as the Turks are. Plus I'm assuming you made a typo with the reference to non-material trade. I presume you mean items that were strictly non-military?
You're confused on the point; the Americans, Dutch and Nords all wanted to trade with Germany in non military goods like foodstuffs and cotton for the United States. Britain cannot justify being opposed to the Turkish restricting trade, as is their legal right through their own territorial waters no less, and then restricting the others via its blockade of others. Even if they could get the Ottomans to agree to non-military trade, that does nothing to improve the conditions of the Russian Army.
That is a valid point which would restrict the forces a bit more than OTL Gallipoli although of course there would be more forces/shipping available overall for such actions. Plus sea transport is about the most efficient form there is for moving large amounts of men and equipment. Its possible that the Austrian fleet might do something but then that could be risky for them.
Likewise, the Austro-Hungarian Navy is unchallenged by the Italians and free to oppose such and, given how Gallipoli worked out for the Anglo-French, how well do you think such an operation on a further logistical tether is going to go? More shipping is addressed by more distance.
Not relevant. You were saying Russia was not talking losses on the offensive. Now your saying it doesn't matter if their on the offensive in 1916 or on the defensive. Please make your mind up. If the Germans [and Austrians?] continue their offensives from 1915 deeper into Russia by new strikes in 1916 their fighting that same Russian army but now on the defensive and the further they advance the worse the CP logistics become.
I never said that, for one, and I've been consistent on my position; the Russians are still going to be taking the same losses, at a minimum, because of the Austro-German envelopment in Poland combined with more German forces enabling more offensives on the East given the reduced nature of the Balkan Front. The Russians are going to remain materially weak and the better performance of the Central Powers from 1915 onward will just bring forward the collapse in the Russians, who failed to stop the Germans on the defensive historically anyway.
Any concerns on the logistics of the Central Powers is unfounded, given there is no Alpine Theater and the Balkans is a relative side show handled by the Bulgarians for the most part. You've freed up the rail requirements and supplies of hundreds of thousands of men historically, here.
Not to mention that with Turkey being neutral there's no offensives against them. Which releases forces and also men, equipment and supplies which OTL were lost on that front are available for the main one.
This tells me you're very unfamiliar with the historical conditions on the Eastern Front in World War I, in that their railway system was the major Russian disadvantage. By 1917 it was in collapse, which is why conditions in the cities and in the armies got so bad; if you switch those troops to the West, you merely speed up this collapse by further over-straining the network.
I'm not sure if the ignorance your claiming is deliberate or not? They are taking almost certainly less losses while fighting in defence of their homeland rather than attacking defensive positions at heavy costs. That makes a significant difference. To take a similar example the predominantly Russian Soviet forces fought hard and continued fighting despite far worse losses in 1941-43 while the current Russian army is staggered to possible collapse in Ukraine now. The basic difference is that in WWII, once they realised that Soviet propaganda was telling the truth for one about how savage the Germans were they realised the cost of defeat to them and their families. Here something similar is almost certain to happen. An even older example in 1812.
Because we have the demonstrated example of seeing it failed to stop the Germans from 1916-1918; they utterly collapsed because when the cities and armies are starving, propaganda doesn't work. If starvation doesn't get him, the German superiority in material will. If your enemy has artillery, while you don't, logic dictates what happens to your trench lines.
There won't be a German offensive in the west true but your going to see a larger Somme one, with the more experienced and better equipped French forces able to play a much larger role.
Based on what?
I said they were after their initial losses. They recruited a lot more men but often lost them on offensives without adequate support - although further crippling the already weakened Austrians in the process. Also as the western powers got their production together as well as Russia ramping up its own they were able to get better levels of equipment as time went on but their morale was shot by the frequent offensive actions and the poor leadership. The latter is still going to be a problem but the former less so. Plus as pointed out there is no other fronts in Turkey or Persia, albeit the latter was relatively minor as a resource drain
Given that the Russian could generally get the better of the Austrian army, especially after the bulk of its regular forces were mauled so badly in 1914 the Germans are going to be stretched thin as they advance. At least unless and until the Russia morale collapses, which it could well not do TTL.
Russia got the better of Austria in 1916 because of Vienna pulling significant forces out for the Asiago Offensive in Italy; that doesn't happen here. Beyond that, we've already addressed the Germans will be stronger, both in material terms and logistics, same for the Austrians.
Well that could be risky with no CP forces supporting them unlike OTL.
Why would it? Serbia is defeated, without the Ottomans in the war it's going to be hard to force things with Greece diplomatically.
Your 1st sentence makes no sense. If you assume the same recruitment why would the EPs maintain large forces on borders with a neutral Ottoman empire when there's a world war going on else. Those forces are going to be deployed against the enemy so the CP's aren't getting the free ride your assuming.
It makes perfect sense when you realize I never stated that anywhere; I fully assume the UK will mobilize its domestic population to the same extent, same for the Dominions. Pulling all of their forces out of the regions surrounding the Ottomans is a no go, however, because of concerns of German-supported revolts and a need to deter Ottoman entry later. You can't pull everything out of Egypt, for example.
Not at all. I suggested an alternative operation that might keep Serbia in the war or at least fighting longer, in good defensive terrain in most cases. If that happens Austria also has a commitment there which will draw in its forces and probably other CP resources.
Which, in other words, mean the same historical forces on the Western Front so how does that larger French force you talked about earlier materialize? I've already explained how your scheme doesn't work, but specifically it's also worth noting that the Serbs themselves had already been contemplating surrender since November of 1914 because of their shell shortage. They're still going to go under and no landing in Montenegro is possible without Italy in the war.
If it doesn't then more forces go to the western front. Well likely anyway because unless there's a clear breakout in the Balkans rather than just a holding action its likely that it would occupy only a few of the forces that OTL fought the Turks.
I'm sure the logistics just magically materialize for this scheme too. Even accepting that handwave, Hundreds of thousands of troops deployed to Italy historically say hello.