>>718897424
Alright, as you also awknowledge that operation Barbarossa was never going to realistically succeed, I'll play ball.
Assuming the objectives you've set completed by 43.
>Leningrad taken
>Moscow taken
>Stalingrad taken
>Caucasus taken (but oilfields out of comission for the time being)
But where I think your wrong is this:
>I'm about 99% sure that Stalin would come to the negotiation table
Though we can't say this for sure, I'd say the war in the east would develop into a deadlock where the Soviets are severy kicked in but not out, Stalin's government would have retreated deeper, most likely into the Urals, where the Soviets had already moved massive portions of their heavy industry prior Barbarossa. Could have they amassed a counter offensive as massive and as quick as they did in our own timeline? No, but it doesn't matter since there is no chance in hell that the Germans would have been capable of Pushing into the Urals, whilst having to garrison a gigantic swath of land, managing supply lines, dealing with partisans etc.

The German's are pretty much too streched thin, fighting on too many fronts, something has to give, be it D-Day or the Italian front. Or if we wanna go full wildcard mode, I would have no doubt in my mind that the war in Europe goes quiet, the emphasis moves towards the Pacific, where the Japs are eventually defeated and afterwards, the Americans just straight march with the Soviets from the east.

And this doesn't even take into account nuclear weapons to be used in Europe. It is said that WW2 was won by British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood. None of which are ultimately out of the picture in the scenario you present.