Could Napoleon win in Russia?

[MinnesotaNationalist]

So I was wondering earlier at what point Napoleon was doomed to fall, where it was impossible for him to win. With little surprise the answer quickly came to Russia.

But my question here today is: Could Napoleon's invasion of Russia succeed in any way? Say head towards Saint Petersburg instead of Moscow, or once winter hit he would head south to Tsaritsyn to wait out the cold? Or was he doomed the moment he set foot in Russia?

[rescribor]

As far as I remember, Napoleon in a very creative way used the rule "march divided, fight concentrated". Thus, very large distances in Russia were detrimental to his type of fighting, unless enemy obliged him and concentrated in one, two (like Prussian army a few years before) or let's say three places.
Another point was that Napoleon did not need to outnumber enemy, just to be more concentrated in critical places and times of campaign and battle. The problem with Russian army was it's size and possible reserves, making it difficult to destroy with a few decisive battles..
Of these constraints was le Grande Armee born - largest army that conquered Europe cold be made to send with l'Empereur, while enough French and more trusted allies were left behind to take care of potential unrest. It was of overall lower quality that any army Napoleon has led before, and stretched the logistics to the breaking point.
Politically, French Empire needed to be seen as victorious, to keep simmering unhappiness of newly divided Europe from boiling over.

I see only 3, very slim possibilities of Napoleon "winning" campaign in Russia:

a) Changing campaigning style - bite enough of Russia off (mainly Russian part of former PLC) to have strategic depth and good defensive lines, overwinter in prepared quarters. Rinse and repeat till Russia is done, fighting battles that need to strategically bled Russia white, preferably only defensive ones

b) Limiting goals - all fighting is only a way to force Russia to negotiate peace that will leave it weaker and Napoleon stronger

c) Political fighting - use force of arms only to ensure, that the secret agents and bribes can induce some faction to overthrow the Tsar


The problem is, any kind of such victory results in a need of more soldiers, more money and more supplies. That could result in badly overstretching Empire control. Also, it would still not stop British ability to finance further anti-Napoleonic coalitions - probably it would give Napoleon only a few more years.

Of course, maybe Napoleon would then follow the footsteps of Alexander the Great and assembled an army to conquer India