The first two options means that Russia remains a member of the victorious allied coalition in WW1 and might reap the expected rewards - which depending upon how weakened Russia is and what role it was able to play in the victory, could range from little more than honored membership in the League of Nations to virtually complete hegemony over many of the newly independent eastern and central European states. It might also mean no fully independent Poland - and certainly no independent Baltic Republics. The Allies were nothing if not hypocritical when they came to implementing Wilson's notions of self-determination.
As others have said, Stalin gets "credit" for industrializing a Russia that was already well on the way. Russia might not industrialize quite as quickly(or violently) as in OTL, but it would become a dominant power in Europe nonetheless - and also be smarter without all the purges of the army and landowning classes.
Defeated Germany would remain ripe for Communist revolution, as would Hungary and Austria. It's hard to say if "no USSR" would make successful revolutions in these places easier or harder. Allies might welcome Germany and the former A-H Empire being further weakened by revolution and civil war, or they might feel the need to intervene on the side of "Whites" (the same monarchist forces they supposedly opposed in WW1) or "Reds" (including socialists) to ensure the old forces did not reassume power. Either way, this could lead to a more thorough and long-lasting occupation of the former central powers as things get sorted out, which in the long run might not be a bad thing.
Completely impossible to project if there would be a WW2 anything like ours.