This is my understanding, from what I've read. Maybe it's wrong.
1. The mercenaries were advancing to invade Moscow, and then they just ... stopped?
This may actually be the dodging of a disaster. I'm not at all sure that replacing Putin with a mercenary general would be a good idea. Especially not for Ukraine, for instead of stopping the war he'd be likely to prosecute it less incompetently.
2. So the guy who ran the submarine knew that the carbon-fiber shell was not rated for multiple descents, but he built and used it anyway? Using aftermarket materials??
I read some editorial defending the guy on the grounds that you can't push the envelope of human achievement without taking risks. I'm familiar with that argument from discussions of NASA. The difference is, 1) this wasn't pushing the envelope of human achievement, this was sight-seeing jaunts; 2) when you're taking those risks, you minimize them by being as vigilant as possible, not by cutting corners; 3) when the risk is high, you don't take tourists along.