Putin has to go. But when and how? What will be the result of his Ukrainian failure in Russia and the rest of the world? How much damage will be inflicted on Ukraine and almost every other country before he is thrown out of the Kremlin?

Working on the assumption that the West will win (any other scenario is unthinkable), what will be the short, medium and long-term repercussions for the world?

The immediate consequence is Hell for Ukraine, pariah status and economic disaster for Russia and economic pain for everyone else.

Vladimir Putin expected Ukraine to fall into his lap like an over-ripe Slavic apple. It didn’t happen. They are fighting back with a fierce patriotism which has shocked the Russian president and won global admiration.

Most of the world has rallied around with the toughest sanctions since World War Two and tons of military hardware – but no troops and no planes for a no fly zone. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and the alliance is terrified of Ukraine escalating into World War III if NATO and Russian troops directly face each other.

So Ukraine is fighting on behalf of a Western Alliance of which it is not officially a member.  It is fighting a war which is the clearest cut case of good against evil since 1939. It is a war which has been 70 years in the waiting.

In the short term Volodomyr Zelensky’s brave army will probably lose militarily. The Russian army is too big. As I write this blog the tank column that has been inching its way towards Kyiv is fanning out through the surrounding forests for a major bombardment of the Ukrainian capital and Russian planes are increasing their attacks.

But a conventional Russian military victory would be a political disaster for Putin. His invasion has created a sense of Ukrainian nationalism which would lead to an insurgency war which would more than equal Moscow’s ten-year Afghan calamity, which in turn led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The economic war would continue and Russia would be forced to retreat behind an unsustainable Soviet-style Iron Curtain.

There are reports that Putin has seen the writing on the wall. He has allegedly fired eight generals and turned on his trusted FSB to accuse them of providing him with faulty intelligence which led to  his invasion order. The FSB is said to have responded by accusing their leader of creating a climate of fear so that reports were doctored to justify his political wish list rather than presenting evidential facts.

As we approach the Ides of March (the 15^th), the scene would appear to be set for a palace coup. But who would replace Putin or dare to move against him. He has surrounded himself with group-thinking yes men known as siloviki (Russian for enforcer).  They owe their positions and wealth to the pleasure of the Russian President and have been appointed because they bought into his autocratic anti-western paranoia harnessed to a messianic belief in Russian greatness. On top of that their actions, conversations and meetings are carefully monitored by presidential spies.

The next possible source of revolt is the Oligarchs who are now being stripped of their vast wealth by Western sanctions. They too owe their position to Putin. Each has been chosen for their personal loyalty to profit from lucrative enterprises. Those who have strayed in their fealty have been stripped of their corporate assets and/or been assassinated. However, Putin is now weakened and a group of Oligarchs may take the view that the best chance of rescuing their baubles is to move against the president.

Next in line is Russia’s young people and intelligentsia. Thousands have taken to the streets to protest the war. An estimated 10,000 have been arrested. They face up to 15 years in prison for spreading “fake news” which is defined as any news not approved by Vladimir Putin. Most of this group never suffered the closed Soviet society. They travel. Until this week they followed Western media. They go clubbing, eat in street cafes and basically enjoy a Western lifestyle. That has disappeared overnight and they are angry.

But for the middle classes to successfully move against Putin they would need the support of Russia’s vast working class and all the signs are that they support Putin’s war—for the time being. The Russian proletariat has a long history of silent suffering under successive repressive regimes (1917 being the exception) and Putin’s stranglehold of the media insures their loyalty.

But even if Putin is removed, what then? How does the rest of the world deal with the persistent and dogmatic Russian paranoia coupled with a messianic belief in its right to greatness with a strong leader at the helm? How do we change centuries of national hubris to bring Russia into the rules-based international order? There was a brief moment after the collapse of the Soviet Union when such a world seemed possible. But it was crushed by the dark Russian soul.

As Putin’s Russia implodes, the West is rising to the occasion. It had appeared weak and divided. Both Moscow and Beijing spoke openly of the decline of democracies and the rise and inevitable victory of   autocracies. But Russia’s attack on the border of NATO and the EU has united and revitalised the Western Alliance. It now has an easily identifiable enemy and a justifiable cause.

Europe has united and backed with German resolve is marching towards a proper security and defence policy. Long-time neutralists Finland and Sweden are considering NATO membership. Even Switzerland has joined the sanctions war. The US has—after four years of wavering under Donald Trump—recommitted itself to the NATO alliance. The bulk of the Republican Party has ditched its isolationism to unite behind a bipartisan war effort, leaving far-right Trumpists floundering.

Autocracies will suffer. Putin has been regarded as a torch bearer by populist strongmen. If he goes down in flames it will embolden others to strike out against men such as Viktor Orban, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Narendra Modi, Nicolas Maduro, Mohammed bin Salman, Jair Bolsonaro, the Myanmar generals, Iran’s Mullahs and others. Syria’s President Assad will be especially vulnerable without his Russian protector.

China is likely to be exception. It is rich and the Communist Party has successfully established control at every level of society and a pseudo-capitalist economy that is delivering a rising standard of living. An attack on Taiwan remains a possibility. But China watchers are dubious—at least at the moment. Xi Jinping has too much to lose by widening the war. Europe (including the UK) has told Washington that it would be reluctant to support an Asian war, partly because it wants to stay focused on Ukraine and partly because it needs trade with China.

But the West faces severe short-term sacrifices. Inflation fuelled by soaring energy prices is affecting every aspect of life. At the moment the American and European public are almost gleefully surrendering the relative good life for the greater causes of Ukrainian freedom and democratic values. But how long will a West already exhausted by the restrictions of Covid continue to tighten its collective belt? Putin probably believes that his dour Russians can outlast the decadent West.

Energy will be the biggest winner and loser. Prices are being pushed up by Russia’s prominence as an international oil and gas exporter. Europe’s economy is almost totally dependent on Russian energy. That is why Moscow’s fossil fuels are currently exempt from European sanctions. That is a short term problem which has to be resolved quickly if only because Putin may turn off the taps at any moment. This week’s EU summit agreed to cut Russian imports by two thirds by the end of the year, but no more than that.

In the short and medium term, climate change policies are being sacrificed on the altar of war. The world desperately needs energy. Increasing production in the OPEC countries and in places such as Norway, the US, fracking sites, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya along with coal production from Australia, India and Poland are seen as necessary wartime fixes.

But simultaneously the West—especially Europe—has awakened to the need to establish secure home-grown energy sources. This means more investment in green technology and probably a German U-turn on its decision to ban nuclear power stations.

The war has raised issues about economic national security in a wide range of other industries ranging from steel production to wheat to microchips. President Biden has spoken in almost Trump-like terms about bringing industries home to protect America.

If 1930s style isolationism is a long term consequence of the Ukraine War then that would be unfortunate. It would damage free trade which has encouraged economic interdependence and for 70 years helped to reduce the spread of conflicts and raised living standards worldwide. Globalisation exports jobs and increases the dependence on other countries. But it also reduces consumer prices, lifts living standards worldwide and—conversely—reduces the chances of conflict.

As usual, it will be the poorest who will suffer most because of Putin’s war—in the developed and developing world. Government finances have already been stretched to breaking point by the pandemic. Now they have to pay for increased defence spending, restructured energy policies, a refugee crisis and, eventually, the rebuilding of Ukraine. Taxes will inevitably rise.  Money will be diverted from education, health and welfare to pay for more immediate needs. Infrastructure projects will be delayed. Borrowings will increase. Foreign aid will be cut. Growth and living standards, especially in the developing world, will falter after decades of improvement. Putin is to blame.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopedia of the War” and the recently published “America Made in Britain". He has a weekly podcast, Transatlantic Riff.