Read a couple of reviews of Lieven "Russia against Napoleon" and I don't see any significant separation from my views. I never bought Tolstoy as history and give full credit to Alexander for knowing how to properly deal with an attack by N. Strategically, N. was out-generaled by A. The Russians learned the lessons of Spain; adapted them to their own situation and applied them with great skill. Their ability to make full use the Cossacks took skill and intelligence. The guts to form internal units to act as partisan groups (Figner for example) is admirable. Tactically, compared to the French, the Russian Army was largely inept, but so was every other army of the time against N.
Don't care to spend much time reading authors trying to push a particular view of war, even if I basically agree with the view. I already have the Austrian view that even though Austria was a constant loser in the field against N. that in the end their Empire form of government still won and that is all that counts. The Austrians also did not and really could not change their values and never fully came to grips with any form of partisan war.
Much of my Russian view comes from Lowenstern.