Well, in one reading, I suppose they did: after the failure of the Moscow uprising of December 1905 and the liberalization policies of Nicholas, the Revolution was stymied for more than a decade. Other historians (as well as Lenin) mark the 1905 Revolution as the beginning of a very prolonged revolution punctuated by 1917. I think either way to look at it has merit, though the intervening years resemble in many ways the political agitation of the 1870s and early 1880s along with strikes, one of the most effective tools of 1905 (the Moscow uprising was quashed when the Tsar brought in a regiment from St Petersburg, but the revolutionaries briefly held train depots and several city districts--but over 1,000 revolutionaries died in just over a week). Even before the 1905 Revolution proper, the Minister of the Interior Vyacheslav Pleve had been assassinated in 1904 by Jewish revolutionaries (he indirectly aided pogroms, and is a key figure in the destruction of revolutionary movements following the assassination of Alexander II).

Lenin instructs us of the nature of revolutionary movements in Russia prior to 1905:

Several hundred revolutionary organisers, several thousand members of local organisations, half a dozen revolutionary papers appearing not more frequently than once a month, published mainly abroad and smuggled into Russia with incredible difficulty and at the cost of many sacrifices—such were the revolutionary parties in Russia, and the revolutionary Social-Democracy in particular, prior to January 22, 1905. This circumstance gave the narrow-minded and overbearing reformists [Struve] formal justification for their claim that there was not yet a revolutionary people in Russia.

Many of these revolutionaries, including the Bolsheviks, Menshwviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and further smaller political groups like anarchists would never have been satisfied by Nicholas's policies: they were, from the perspective of the revolutionary, liberal half-measures. So while these did respond to the problems raised by liberals, no preservation of the ancien regime would have been acceptable for the Bolsheviks. But in 1906, the Duma was dissolved after two months as the parliament was composed of liberals who did call for more power (for example, the Kadets were thoroughly purged as a result of the Vyborg Manifesto, and in a neutered state became a much more conservative and uninfluential party). Political violence, after 1905, became even more pronounced, largely from the revolutionary parties; in turn, state repression was marked by thousands of imprisoned party members and hundreds of executions, both peaking around 1910-11. Pyotr Stolypin, one of the strongest statesman after 1905, was assassinated in 1911, and marks one of the most significant shifts before the Revolution. (Stolypin had also engineered the dissolution of the Second Duma, again to remove liberals and a smaller number of radicals).

​

While 1905 may be viewed as a failure--or as a 'dress rehearsal'--certainly the participants of the strikes could observe their material conditions following, the liberalization measures of the Tar, the restrictions of the Duma, and Russia's entry into World War I. Throughout the war, many monarchists and conservatives lost faith in Nicholas as the Tsar as Russia struggled; Alexandra was German, and while I wouldn't give an outsized role to Rasputin he was exceptionally poorly received by the aristocrats. In 1915 Nicholas seized control of the armies and, after several quite severe losses, further eroded faith either in the monarchy or in Nicholas. The Okhrana indirectly supported the Revolution by fostering Bolshevism over other radical groups (while keeping tabs on it--the spy Roman Malinovsky was even the de facto head of the Bolsheviks in 1913), and by the fall of 1916 directly warned Nicholas of the coming revolution.

Edit: typo on year