score:6
Yes, but Not Successfully.
The Russians quite likely had the capability to do what was described. But "do" and "do successfully" are not the same things. (As an aside, I'm very fond of The Russian Origins of the First World War and think the author does an excellent job overall.) They could probably have landed the troops, at least the first wave of 30,000ish. I doubt they could actually have pulled off a successful seaborne invasion. One of the reoccurring themes of the war, especially the early war, is that Russian armies were woefully unprepared logistically. Not just in the "normal" WWI sense of "not enough shells per gun" but in totally self-inflicted wound sort of ways. For instance, Logistics were COMPLETELY IGNORED in Russian wargames. Mostly (per Prit Buttar in Collision of Empires) to spare the various army commanders' embarrassment because they knew very little about the subject. This had practical effects at the outbreak of the war, not least in the fact that Rennekampf's army and others were woefully under-supplied in logistics officers because those sorts of rear echelon troops were moved LAST in the Russian mobilization orders, and were in the early days simply left behind. Imagine a D-Day beachhead with no beachmasters, no plan for moving supply from ship to the troops in the field, and the guys who were in charge of moving said supplies being on the LAST boat to leave. It's not pretty.
While I think the Russians could have gathered up enough ships and men to launch an invasion, given the state of Russian logistics I doubt very much any force actually put on Turkish territory via naval landing in 1914 would have been successful. My best bet would be that they'd land somewhere near-ish Constantinople, potentially push aside whatever initial blocking force was there.... and promptly run out of food and ammunition. Or be forced to hold back reinforcements for the "initial" 30,000 in favor of food and supplies to keep the first wave active. The Russians had massive logistical problems mere kilometres outside their territory (and sometimes even within it!) during 1914. Supplying an army in enemy territory via a contested sea route would almost certainly have been beyond them.
*** ADDENDUM ***
The above assumes a "best-case" scenario for the Russians from a naval perspective. No storms impeding shipping, the Turkish navy brushed aside in the opening acts of the war and the Central Powers having 0 ability to interfere with the transport of troops and supplies. If the Turks or the Germans retained surface ships or submarines enough to disrupt the shipping involved, the odds get even worse.
Upvote:1
I agree with the answer of Dario Qunit about disastrous logistics and how this could imper the capabilities to put an efficient force on shore. But it should be noted that the Russian navy had far better experience on logistical problems, and thus it might have led the Army to put their forces into correct shape before embarking. I mean, the sailors could have insisted on bringing food and ammo for themselves, and thus inspire army forces to do the same.
Even if the Russians, using a coordinated action with French and British to destroy the Turkish navy nearly in its bases, had secure the sea route, they would have faced an heavy resistance from the Turkish army. Not only a Gallipoli-style resistance, but also a resistance using land forces in an open-field battle and the Russians might have failed to destroy it.