The financed Russia because it was an urgent need, AH doesn't have the urgent need of industrializing unlike Russia, so I don't see why they would lend as much money as they did to Russia.
Really AH has no chance, Germany alone would probably be able to break AH while fending off any attempts at incursion from Alsace by the French (since the idea of the Schlieffen Plan was to attack the weaker one, defeat it and defeat the stronger one). Once AH collapses (or starts to) the Entente is in a bad spot, Germany is more than capable at launching decisive offensives against them at this point and they can use harvests taken from AH to feed themselves.
Why would the Balkans not do this? IOTL Serbia was alone on its front and Montenegro had no problems joining it, these two have a reason to join Russia just as Romania does.
Russia never demanded loans as a pre-condition for the alliance. AH is isolated itself since their only benefactor (Germany) has abandoned them in favor of Russia, if they don't find allies quickly they are in danger, and their ambitions in the Balkans are dead without German help. AH needs and alliance as much as France does.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire has enough industry and infrastructure, unlike Russia they aren't lagging behind; the Austrian part of the Empire is enough to support a war effort (as shown by OTL WW1 they had enough industry to arm their soldiers).
The kind of loans France and Britain gave to Russia were not made due to economic but rather political considerations, as I've already explained there is no political reason to give AH loans so there is going to be very little interest in giving anything close to the amounts of loans they gave to Russia IOTL.
The Russians are more than capable of mobilizing large armies and moving them, and the Russians had a standing army of 1.4 million soldiers + reserves = 5.9 million men. 5m troops were mobilized IOTL in 1914, let's say Russia has half the speed of OTL: it still has 2.5 m troops fighting against only AH who also has to care about the German front and potentially Italy, Romania, Montenegro and Serbia.
Saying that the Russians are unable to do anything at the beginning of the war is ridiculous.
And the Battle of Tannenberg happened one month after the start of ww1.
And why do they accept ITTL?
If they're putting themselves in debt to develop Hungary then they quite certainly are spending a lot of money.
They didn't increase the military budget in the way you're envisioning it either, spending a lot of money to develop Hungary and develop a larger army need a lot of money so unless they do budget cuts on one of the two, it will put a strain on state finances.
Russia has 125 million people, 1 million standing army is what to AH is an army 400k men, which is precisely what they had IOTL. They're going to spend more money on developing Hungary than in revenues at the beginning, and then there is the question whether the Habsburgs wanted this.
Why not? I already explained that the whole point of the Schlieffen plan was to attack the weaker one first to knock it out of the war, which by all means is AH: the Germans would try to knock out AH out of the war quickly and then go on to defeat the French.
So you're saying me that it's easier to invade Belgium and go all the way to Paris with an extremely risky plan that needs everything to be exactly on schedule is easier than just attacking AH?
AH would have to fight both Germany and Russia which is beyond them, even half of the German army would be more than enough to inflict serious defeat on them.
As for the French succeeding in Alsace, saying that it's ASB would be an understatement. The Germans really had almost no forces defending the border there, it's simply that charging against the enemy lines like the French did is not something that works in WW1, which is why it failed.
Because anything close to OTL army is uncapable of stopping Russian troops and conduct an invasion of Serbia? Or at fending off a secondary offensive by the Russians (with the Germans easily stopping the main one)? Because they were constantly reliant on Germany not to collapse their front with Russia?
The Germans have a far better army than the AH be it in leadership or equipment, half of it (and there will be more than half of it) is more than enough to make big gains against AH and that's not talking about the facts that you still need to fight off millions of Russian soldiers coming at you in Galicia, no matter how backward they may be they still need a lot of troops to stop them.
My prediction is that the Russo-German alliance will occupy most of AH land at some point, anyways yes Romania was useful but the end of the food stockpile is not going to end after two years, it's finishing at worst in late 1917 which is more than enough time to beat AH badly.
They weren't, despite having on of the most idiotic leaders of the 20th century and repeatedly making big mistakes, the Russians defeated the AH a number of times and kept German troops busy for the entire war. They only were completely lost once the Provisional Government took over and made big mistakes, allowing for the Bolsheviks to come to power and they then only were beaten by the Germans (ignoring the fact that the Bolsheviks purposefully demobilized the army themselves which made Operation Faustschlag possible). A house of cards would've been destroyed like Romania was IOTL.
Like Russia is completely unable at producing modern artillery because they don't have French loans?
Modern artillery wasn't really a problem for the Russians according to this
source.
For God's sake the Russians aren't going to be backwards so much so that they're going to always lose to the "modern Austro-Hungarian army", for a matter of fact the AH army had proportionately less guns than the Russians and the rifles they used in WW1 were completely independent from French loans, the Mosin exists anyways.
Coal was mainly used for industries, most Italians lived in the countryside and used this to not freeze in winter:
