The war happened for calculated, self-serving geopolitical reasons deemed beneficial to Putin's regime (likely decided on by a small inner-circle) not because some abstract level of higher cultural brutality had been reached which means it's now inevitable. For the wider public outside of the political class, i'd have argued it's the vast depoliticised apathy that is a much bigger cause in allowing things to go this far, not widespread bloodthirst for rape and war, or really even any coherent ideological commitment to expansion and Russian supremacy among the greater public. There's enough of the latter aspects in a more incoherent form (and far more so lack of educated awareness of historic imperialism/colonialism that enables it) to win a significant chunk of support after the regime initiates something (especially relatively small scale like Crimea or Georgian conflict), however outside of a tiny number fringe ultranationalists/ hardline communists there wasn't any public desire to invade ex-empire/ussr countries and take back big chunks of land for revanchist reasons. You can see that in the way the regime has handled propaganda towards Ukraine since 2014: the "it's not a real country, it's our land historically and we're justified in taking control if they do x y z" aspect is there, but the real thrust for actually building to direct action is an appeal to people's humanity and ethnic solidarity (ethnic russians/pro-russians being unjustly persecuted/attacked in donbas).
Even something as brazenly cynical as the invocation of the great historical enemy (Nazis/fascists) ideology taking root in Ukraine ended up with greater precedence than appeals of the "take back that which belongs to us/which we once controlled" variety. While i fully believe in taking collective societal responsibility for allowing things to get to where they are, i don't feel the idea that has been pushed over the last year of this being a war russian people wanted just as much as Putin's/regime did really holds up to deeper scrutiny, though i understand its initial use in showing the war has gained notable support (how much is extremely hard to properly assess). It's nonetheless a very manufactured, depressingly avoidable situation caused by the elites, rather than something that had any widespread public backing (or even expectation of it actually happening, unlike other recent avoidable conflicts) beforehand. Though i do sadly think had Putin maintained some sort of democratic facade, and outwardly pushed a case to gain public support for a more contained invasion/reclamation of the supposedly persecuted seperatist areas of Donbas, he would get more than enough to claim it as the will of the people.
Putin himself is likely the same as he always was in his willingness to use force, if not his competence on what he can get away with/succeed in. His actions in entering this conflict, and the conduct of the army within it, are another predictable replay of what we all know can happen with long-term autocrats making increasingly irrational decisions - and how a military tends to decay to its worst aspects and act when under a regime that is both not very competent and increasingly authoritarian. Especially when faced with a stubborn insurgent element, or capable external opponent that has been propagandized at length.
