Was the Russian 1917 February Revolution inevitable?

Adding to this, in the 90's, opposition in Russia grew alarmingly, especially after the 1905 revolutions. The political parties were better organized and larger in number and Nicholas II little did to impede them from growing. The population slowly became aware that the Duma was only a 'cosmetic change' and that the Tsar still held the power. Political parties used this in their favor and progressively changed people's opinions concerning the monarchical system. Social aspects didn't advance either; peasants were conscious that change wasn't taking place: the economy was facing inflation and land reforms never worked.

Perhaps one of the most important factors that led to the revolution was the Great War. WWI was a total war; this means that all sectors of the industry and economy were heavily focused in the War. The war was very unpopular in Russia: many families were dismantled; the soldiers had a low morale, and food became extremely scarce (hunger in cities was frequent). The work hours increased to cope with the demand of the war but the wages were kept the same leaving the peasantry discontent. Instead of leaving the war and trying to improve the situation in the homeland, the Tsar was stubborn and insisted in fruitless offensives against the Germans. The situation aggravated when the Tsar went to the front trying to boost the soldier's morale and to spring up patriotic feelings. He faced a series of disgraceful defeats which were now personally blamed on him by the Russians. Gradually, the peasants, the middle class and even his troops lost their trust and respect for the Tsar.

Another contributing factor to the revolution was Grigory Rasputin. He was a spiritual healer that became very intimate to the royal family and especially to the Tsarina which was very sympathetic towards him. Supposedly, Rasputin had the ability to temporarily heal Alexei from his hemophilia. However, Rasputin was hated amongst the nobility and many thought that Rasputin was influencing the Tsar's decisions. Moreover, there were rumors that the Tsarina and Rasputin and were secrete lovers, this was degrading for the Tsar's reputation. By the end of 1916, the generals told the Tsar they wouldn't stand by him anymore.

Taking all the evidence into consideration we can perceive that the situation was chaotic and urging for change. The tsarist autocratic rule was outdated and oppressive; the Russians couldn't bear with it anymore. The economy wasn't progressing, the war only infuriated the population and opposition was better organized. Based on Russia's backward past, one may argue that the revolution was destined to occur. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the revolution could have been stopped. Nicholas II was an inexperienced Tsar, unwilling to rule and somehow unaware of all the problems in the Russian society. Nicholas II made many errors in his ruling, the biggest of them being the pointless WWI. By continuing fighting, he was depriving the peasants of their basic needs. The peasants had always remained in 'anonymity' in the Russian hierarchy; they were excluded from politics and the economy. So who would they blame? The Tsar - this is why many historians consider the February 1917 revolution a popular revolution. All this major discontent in the country against the government culminated with the Revolution. Maybe if the approach by the Tsar had been different the revolution could have been delayed or even avoided.