The thing is, the sea-of-objects-where-everything-mutates-everything-else programming model is fundamentally bad. It's too hard to reason about. Programs and data need structure. There certainly are structures that do not easily fit into Rust's constraints (e.g. when you're modelling an arbitrary graph), but when you choose a sea-of-objects design when not absolutely required by the problem domain (and it almost never is), you choose poorly.
Even if you do need to model an arbitrary graph (for example), though a traditional programming language would make it a lot easier than in Rust, I still wouldn't necessarily let that dictate the choice of programming language. Most likely your program will end up doing a lot more than just banging on the graph and those parts may benefit from a more disciplined programming language.
You can structure mutation just fine by organizing those objects into hierarchies of abstraction, such that a sea of objects on one level becomes a single black box on the next. This keeps the "seas" small enough to reason about.
Even if you do need to model an arbitrary graph (for example), though a traditional programming language would make it a lot easier than in Rust, I still wouldn't necessarily let that dictate the choice of programming language. Most likely your program will end up doing a lot more than just banging on the graph and those parts may benefit from a more disciplined programming language.