Got a chance to look at the video...
The TU-22 in the video was what we called a Backfire-C. It had the F-15 style intakes. Later production. Early versions, the Backfire-B, had F-4 style intakes. Anyway, it's a big jet, over 250,000 lbs at max weight. And it was pretty highly wing-loaded. Lots of weight for the wing. It was designed for a Mach 2 dash to the target, so the wing was thin, and variable geometry to reduce drag and allow a strategic bomber to go that fast. Doesn't leave a lot of wing for landing, or takeoff performance, it's a thin wing, flown at high AOA for takeoff and landing. Not like an airliner, that has a thick wing and flies at a low angle of attack.
I don't know much about how it flew or handled, but I suspect that it was landing at over 150,000 lbs. That would be base empty weight plus some reasonable fuel reserves. It's a highly wing loaded airplane. Lots of weight carried by each square foot of wing. That kind of high-performance airframe is unforgiving. The high weight means that anything you do with the airplane involves large forces, and lots of momentum.
It's my initial impression that the sink rate was extreme. Far beyond design limits for that kind of airplane, perhaps beyond what a carrier airplane could handle. Typical airliners can handle about 600 FPM (10 FPS) of vertical velocity. Carrier airplanes routinely land with 10-12 FPS, and are designed for up to 15 FPS. 19, FPSI think, was the design goal for the F-14 (which was a notoriously strong airframe).
So, what happened? Here is my guess:
Training mission for a crew that flies very few hours/year. Bad weather on return. Adrenaline-filled approach. Pressure to land felt by crew (pride, command pressure, worry, etc.). So, they try to salvage a bad approach, where they got a bit above glideslope while on instruments. The transition from instruments to visual is always challenging - and when doing in it in bad weather, particularly in heavy snow, it's hard to make sense of where you are. You often "feel" something that isn't so.
Pilot flying tries to correct from what he knows is a high approach and in trying to correct for that, by reducing power, and likely pushing forward on the yoke/stick, sets up a huge sink rate - easy to do in a high speed, highly wing loaded, and very heavy airplane. If you're already at high AOA, as I suspect this model flies on a normal approach, then raising the nose will do nothing to change the descent rate, you simply lose lift as you exceed critical AOA. If you take the power off a high AOA, thin wing, you're taking energy out of the airplane/system, and there is no way to add enough energy in time to stop what you set up with too large of a power reduction and descent rate increase.
High-performance airplanes are like that. There is no margin, no reserve, aerodynamically. It takes lots of power, LOTS of it, to change the descent rate, and if the airplane gets slow, it's just coming down a lot faster, no matter how much power you add. Ask the guys the flew F-8s aboard carriers... You can take off enough power, and set up a sink rate (in nearly 100 tons of machine, in this case) that cannot be changed in the time remaining...and I think that's what happened here.
The runway is obscured in snow - masking the sense of height above the runway, so as the crew sees the runway they don't perceive the excess sink rate. They got behind the airplane, which was coming down like a falling safe...
I heard the engine power increase about a second before impact, but I saw no change in pitch to adjust the rate of descent. The change in engine noise could simply have been the airplane getting closer, as well. Hard to tell from the grainy video...but it was clear that the airplane was flown into the runway with no attempt to flare, or arrest/change that sink rate. They hit far harder than any land-based, and perhaps any carrier-based, airplane was designed to hit. It broke the structure of the airplane just forward of the main gear. I don't think the structure was weak.
That was just an incredibly hard landing. An insane sink rate. I doubt, in the confusion of approach parameters, blowing snow, and an obscured surface, that they even knew...
So, simply, pilot error.