Also, you try to paint it as "sh*t happens", if I understand you correctly.
No, not at all. You describe the reasons (crew and leadership) correctly.
I disagree on the motives like busting minimums intentionally or a general in the cockpit making all people nervous. They busted the minimums, but they didnīt plan on it. They got way behind the aircraft due to lack of training, knowledge and CRM. They went through the minimums in a paralyzed state of mind not knowing what to do. They didnīt expect to be down at the minimum that early.
They even planned the go around in automatics, against rules and regs, because they didnīt know better.
We could assume they didnt understand the autopilot at all; the first reaction to decrease the descent rate or to level of was in vain, the appropriate disconnect switcht was not used and the applied pitch force was not enough to disconnect the pitch axis and the craft continued on downward. The second try (again without using the disconnect switch) and final action was so agressive, that the aircraft would have stalled later on even when they would have cleared the terrain.
If you ammend the statement as follows
"sh*t happens..... if you try to do things beyond your capability and run out of luck"
then we are in line.
The roll of ATC is not a glorious one, but the crew missed to ask for the available Radar-NDB approach and hence for the proper assistance. They didnīt state their kind of approach at all.
That the report lies its weight on the polish shortcomings and tries to screen the own shortfalls (calibration of glideslope, resulting glidepath information, approach lighting, acceptance of inproper procedures on the side of the approaching aircraft like not stating the type of approach...) is nothing to wonder about. That is the political side of the story.
franzl